DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/22/2022, 06/09/2022, 05/18/2022 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. An explanation is provided below.
Applicant alleges on p.16
Bush teaches away from cropping "after a determination that the condition is satisfied' because Bush discloses that "a portion of a current spectrogram (either fundamental or harmonic)" (Office-interpreted as "cropped portion") is cropped before being compared to a spectrogram of a known activity. Particularly, by cropping "a portion of a current spectrogram (either fundamental or harmonic)" from the current spectrogram 506 (Office-interpreted as "one or more of the second set of features"), Bush does not teach that cropping is performed after completing the step to "compare one or more of the second set of features to respective thresholds to determine whether a condition is satisfied," as recited in Claim 1. Further, the portion of the current spectrogram in Bush is not cropped based on the activity end time of the activity, but instead based on fundamental or harmonic frequency. The fundamental or harmonic frequency does not teach or suggest the activity end time of Claim 1. Therefore, Bush alone, or in combination with Kulkarni and Jeoni, does not teach or suggest the above-emphasized features of Claim 1 as amended.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant alleges Bush teaches away from cropping "after a determination that the condition is satisfied' because ‘Bush does not teach that cropping is performed after completing the step to "compare one or more of the second set of features to respective thresholds to determine whether a condition is satisfied," as recited in Claim 1’. However, Kulkarni is used to teach ‘compare one or more of the second set of features to respective thresholds to determine whether a condition is satisfied’. Furthermore, Bush teaches in para 0044 “If there is no movement of the object, the amplitude of any frequency component above or below 0 Hz in the harmonic spectrogram will be substantially zero. If, however, there is movement of the object, then one or more frequency components of the harmonic spectrogram will have a non-zero amplitude. One of ordinary skill will recognize that a predetermined threshold may by applied such that frequency components with an amplitude value”. Here, features are being compared to a threshold to determine if a motion condition is satisfied. From there, movement activity can be compared to spectrogram data for classification (0045 “the movement of the tag and object can be characterized, for example, by a harmonic spectrogram that includes a timeline of different frequencies and their amplitudes in the base band version of the harmonic return signal. Multiple samples of an activity, e.g., teeth brushing, can be captured along with their corresponding spectrograms.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4-7 and 14-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
As best understood within the context of Applicant' s claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art. Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-12, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al. (US 20200145042 hereinafter Kulkarni) in view of Bush et al. (US 20200285926 hereinafter Bush), Jeon et al. (US 20130093616 hereinafter Jeon) and further in view of Santra et al. (US PAT 11435443 hereinafter Santra).
Regarding claim 1, Kulkarni teaches An electronic device comprising: a transceiver (Abstract “The electronic device includes a radar transceiver”); and
a processor operably connected to the transceiver, the processor configured to (Abstract “The electronic device includes a radar transceiver, a sensor, and a processor”):
transmit, via the transceiver, a set of radar signals for activity recognition (fig 17),
identify a first set of features and a second set of features from received reflections of the set of radar signals (Abstract “based on information obtained from the sensor, that the electronic device is in a first motion state, during the first motion state of the electronic device, control the radar transceiver to transmit a first set of signals, generate a first channel impulse response (CIR) based on the received first set of signals being received, apply a filter that estimates a leakage depicted by the first CIR, in a second motion state, control the radar transceiver to transmit a second set of signals, generate a second CIR based on the received second set of signals”),
(0129 “In some embodiments, past leakage estimates that are stored in the memory 130 can be compared with the radar signal received by the radar transceiver 126 in the current frame. If the past leakage estimate in a tap is considered to be close to the current radar signal of the tap, the processor 110 can determine that a target has not been detected in the tap and the processor 110 proceeds to operation 1510”),
after a determination that the condition is satisfied (0080 “In response to the motion state being classified as motion state 2 in operation 710, in operation 745 the processor 110 estimates leakage subdued CIR CTARGET_EST based on the estimated leakage CLEAK_EST filter obtained in operation 740 and n-D CIR matrix CRAW obtained in operation 715. To estimate the leakage subdued CIR CTARGET_EST, the processor 110 cancels the estimated leakage CLEAK_EST by applying the generated filter to the data from the CRAW. The CIR CTARGET_EST can then be used to accurately detect target objects and distinguish the detected target objects from false targets that can interfere with the navigation path of the electronic device 100.” [accurately detecting target objects corresponds to performing an action]).
Kulkarni does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Bush teaches the first set of features indicating whether an activity is detected based on power of the received reflections (Bush 0039 “For example, the doppler shift frequencies present in the return signal can correspond to velocities of the object's (or person's) movement, the amplitude of the various frequencies present in the return signal can indicate a confidence, or certainty, that a particular frequency is actually present, and the periodicity, if any, of the return signal can indicate a time interval between successive occurrences of a particular frequency component”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the motion system and method of Bush with the teachings of Kulkarni. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the accuracy of the classification of sensed activities (Bush 0073). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Bush merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular use of power information for target distinction. Since both Kulkarni and Bush disclose similar radars for motion sensing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Jeon teaches
based on the first set of features (0054 “A feature vector maybe a signal periodicity, a frequency bandwidth, or an energy intensity,”) indicating that the activity is detected (0055 “A pattern of a reflected and received RF signal may vary according to a motion of a human being, a motion of an animal, or a response signal of a moving object such as a vehicle.”),
compare one or more of the second set of features to respective thresholds to determine whether a condition is satisfied (0059 “The database 500 stores reference patterns based on feature vectors extracted from frequency spectrograms regarding a human being, animals (a cat, a dog, etc.), and fixed and moving objects (trees, vehicles, etc.) in advance.”; 0060 “In this way, the determiner 490 may classify the object into, for example, a human being, an animal, a moving object (e.g., a robot or vehicle), etc. by using pattern comparison . . . In this case, the feature extractor 480 may generate a combination value of at least one feature vector extracted from the frequency spectrograms to compare the combination value with the pattern stored in the database 500.”), and
after a determination that the condition is satisfied, perform an action based on a cropped portion of the second set of features (fig 9; 0016 “determining a minimum value and a maximum value of each of at least one feature vector for a target object or a minimum value and a maximum value of a combination of the at least one feature vector for the target object”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Jeon with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve classification (Jeon 0061). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Jeon merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular cropping features. Since both Jeon and Bush disclose similar radars for motion sensing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Santra teaches
after an activity end time is identified, crop the second set of features based on the activity end time of the activity to thereby generate a cropped portion of the second set of features (14:13-17 “During the first step of training classifier 900, first spectrogram snippets associated with human activities, where the first spectrogram snippets are truncated Doppler spectrograms that do not include transitions between activities”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Santra with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve classification accuracy (Santra 8:15-25). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Santra merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the classification features. Since both Santra and the cited prior art disclose similar radars for motion sensing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, The cited prior art teach The electronic device of Claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: identify, using a machine learning classifier, a response from the cropped portion of the second set of features; and select the action based on the response (Bush 0059 “Further in accordance with the present disclosure, radar return data may be used to classify activity, particularly human-related activity, into a limited number of classes through a procedure of preprocessing of a spectrogram and machine learning classification.”; 0039 “For example, the doppler shift frequencies present in the return signal can correspond to velocities of the object's (or person's) movement, the amplitude of the various frequencies present in the return signal can indicate a confidence, or certainty, that a particular frequency is actually present”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the motion system and method of Bush with the motion assisted leakage removal system and method of Kulkarni and teachings of Jeon. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the accuracy of the classification of sensed activities (Bush 0073). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Bush merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular use of a machine learning classifier. Since both Kulkarni and Bush disclose similar radars for motion sensing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim(s) 3, 8, 13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al. (US 20200145042 hereinafter Kulkarni) in view of Bush et al. (US 20200285926 hereinafter Bush), Jeon et al. (US 20130093616 hereinafter Jeon) and further in view of Santra et al. (US PAT 11435443 hereinafter Santra) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Droitcour (US 20100249633).
Regarding claim 3, The cited prior art teach The electronic device of Claim 1,
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Droitcour teaches using a high pass filter to filter unwanted signals for a first and second set of features (Droitcour 0023 “A matrix, calculating a first energy corresponding to the average energy of a third subset of frames filtered by a high-pass filter and a second energy corresponding to the average energy of a fourth subset of frames filtered by a high-pass filter, and calculating a ratio of the second energy to the first energy.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the radar system and method of radar with the motion assisted with the teachings of Jeon, Bush and Kulkarni. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar measurements (Droitcour 0194). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Droitcour merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular use of a high pass filter. Since both the previous combination and Droitcour disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, The cited prior art teach The electronic device of Claim 1, (Bush 0059 “Further in accordance with the present disclosure, radar return data may be used to classify activity, particularly human-related activity, into a limited number of classes through a procedure of preprocessing of a spectrogram and machine learning classification.”; 0039 “For example, the doppler shift frequencies present in the return signal can correspond to velocities of the object's (or person's) movement, the amplitude of the various frequencies present in the return signal can indicate a confidence, or certainty, that a particular frequency is actually present”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the motion system and method of Bush with the motion assisted leakage removal system and method of Kulkarni and teachings of Jeon. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the accuracy of the classification of sensed activities (Bush 0073). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Bush merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular use of a machine learning classifier. Since both Kulkarni and Bush disclose similar radars for motion sensing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Droitcour teaches wherein to determine whether the condition is satisfied, the processor is further configured to: after an activity end time is identified, compare a first average power associated with the activity to a predefined threshold; determine that the condition is satisfied based on a result of the comparison; and crop the portion of the second set of features based on an identified activity start time and the activity end time (0202 “those where the measurement commences N seconds after the end of the last measurement; those where the measurement commences after sensing signal quality such that intervals can be varied and only the number of measurements per N seconds is specified”; 0230 “In some embodiments, the frames can be compared against a power threshold and frames that fall below this power threshold are flagged as low-power signal events”; fig 8)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the radar system and method of Droitcour with the teachings of Jeon, Bush and Kulkarni. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar measurements (Droitcour 0194). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Droitcour merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular use of a high pass filter. Since both the previous combination and Droitcour disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 8.
Claim(s) 9,19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al. (US 20200145042 hereinafter Kulkarni) in view of Bush et al. (US 20200285926 hereinafter Bush), Jeon et al. (US 20130093616 hereinafter Jeon) and further in view of Santra et al. (US PAT 11435443 hereinafter Santra) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chandra (US 20240061064 hereinafter Chandra).
Regarding claim 9, The cited prior art teach The electronic device of Claim 1, (Bush 0059 “Further in accordance with the present disclosure, radar return data may be used to classify activity, particularly human-related activity, into a limited number of classes through a procedure of preprocessing of a spectrogram and machine learning classification.”; 0039 “For example, the doppler shift frequencies present in the return signal can correspond to velocities of the object's (or person's) movement, the amplitude of the various frequencies present in the return signal can indicate a confidence, or certainty, that a particular frequency is actually present”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the motion system and method of Bush with the motion assisted leakage removal system and method of Kulkarni and teachings of Jeon. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the accuracy of the classification of sensed activities (Bush 0073). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Bush merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular use of a machine learning classifier. Since both Kulkarni and Bush disclose similar radars for motion sensing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Chandra teaches wherein to determine whether the condition is satisfied, the processor is further configured to: after an activity end time is identified (fig. 1; 0072 “FIG. 1, for instance, the wireless communication equipment 12, 16 may detect the targeted signature SIG.sub.DS in the Doppler spread by detecting sub-signature S1 during the time period P1 before the transition 14 occurs, detecting sub-signature S2 during the time period P2 in which the transition 14 is occurring, and detecting sub-signature S3 during the time period P3 after the transition 14 has occurred”), compare (i) a maximum Doppler to a first threshold and (ii) doppler spread to a second threshold; determining that the condition is satisfied based on a result of the comparison (0094 “In some embodiments where the detecting comprises detecting a targeted signature over time in a Doppler spread . . . In one embodiment, for example, the first sub-signature S1 in the Doppler spread is values 18 of the Doppler spread being greater than or equal to a first upper threshold, the second sub-signature S2 in the Doppler spread is values 18 of the Doppler spread being less than or equal to a lower threshold, and the third sub-signature S3 in the Doppler spread is values 18 of the Doppler spread being greater than or equal to a second upper threshold, where the first and second upper thresholds coincide or are different.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the system and method of Chandra with the teachings of Jeon, Bush and Kulkarni. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce noise (Chandra 0069). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Chandra merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular doppler teachings. Since both the previous combination and Chandra disclose similar doppler teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 9.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni et al. (US 20200145042 hereinafter Kulkarni) in view of Bush et al. (US 20200285926 hereinafter Bush), Jeon et al. (US 20130093616 hereinafter Jeon) and further in view of Santra et al. (US PAT 11435443 hereinafter Santra) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller (US 20130041640).
Regarding claim 10, The cited prior art teach The electronic device of Claim 1, (Santra 7:42-47 “FIG. 4 shows graph 400 of a human target that is not detected during a portion of time, as shown by region 402. During a misdetection, a track of the tracker 304 may not get associated with a detection, and, therefore, there may not be a feature extraction during that frame”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Santra with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve classification accuracy (Santra 8:15-25). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Santra merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the classification features. Since both Santra and the cited prior art disclose similar radars for motion sensing, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The combination does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Miller teaches wherein the second set of features include at least one of: a time velocity diagram, a range profile, a power-weighted Doppler, and a first average power over a first time period (0001 “This invention relates to the classification of objects using range profiles and in particular, but not exclusively, to the recognition of objects based upon models representing potential range profiles for those objects.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the system and method of Miller with the teachings of Jeon, Bush and Kulkarni. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve classification (Miller 0032). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Miller merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular doppler teachings. Since both the previous combination and Miller disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Daley (US 20180018965) discloses “A method and device for automatic meeting detection and analysis. A mobile electronic device includes multiple sensors configured to selectively capture sensor data. A classifier is configured to analyze the sensor data to detect a meeting zone for a meeting with multiple participants. A processor device is configured to control the multiple sensors and the classifier to trigger sensor data capture (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648