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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 8/26/25 have been entered. Claims 1, 7, 9-12, 16, 18, 20-31 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see ‘Rejection of Claims 1 and 12 Under 35 U.S.C. 103’, filed 8/26/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 12 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Osterweil (US 7916066 B1).
Applicant’s arguments, see ‘Rejection of Remaining Claims’, filed 8/26/25, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7, 9-11, 16, 18, and 20-31 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Osterweil (US 7916066 B1).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterweil (US 7916066 B1) in view of Shirai (EP 0782008 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Osterweil discloses
A fall detector device (Column 1 lines 25-28, “The present invention is directed to an apparatus and method for automatically identifying a subject, such as, for example, a human or animal, who has fallen while in a defined three-dimensional (3-D) space”) for determining a height metric of a person in an environment using 3D coordinates associated with the object in the environment for determining a fall condition of the person (Column 12 lines 59-65, “FIG. 4 illustrates the scene of FIG. 3 with the addition of subjects 350, 352, 254, and 356, each shown in different position relative Ta and Tb thresholds. An algorithm for detecting fall condition determines a fall when the radar does not detect the subject's (upper torso) heart/lungs above their respective thresholds while at least one of the radars detects the presence the subject”), comprising: a 3D reflected wave measuring device having a 3D coordinate system for measuring 3D coordinates of an object in the environment for determining the height metric of the person in the environment (Column 1 lines 25-28, “The present invention is directed to an apparatus and method for automatically identifying a subject, such as, for example, a human or animal, who has fallen while in a defined three-dimensional (3-D) space”; Column 12 lines 59-65, “FIG. 4 illustrates the scene of FIG. 3 with the addition of subjects 350, 352, 254, and 356, each shown in different position relative Ta and Tb thresholds. An algorithm for detecting fall condition determines a fall when the radar does not detect the subject's (upper torso) heart/lungs above their respective thresholds while at least one of the radars detects the presence the subject”; Abstract, “A radar fall detector system”), the 3D reflected wave measuring device having a first frame of reference (Column 12 lines 59-65, “FIG. 4 illustrates the scene of FIG. 3 with the addition of subjects 350, 352, 254, and 356, each shown in different position relative Ta and Tb thresholds. An algorithm for detecting fall condition determines a fall when the radar does not detect the subject's (upper torso) heart/lungs above their respective thresholds while at least one of the radars detects the presence the subject” where the radar’s height from the ground is the first frame of reference); and the second frame of reference comprises a horizontal plane associated with the environment, and wherein the processor is configured to determine the height metric of the object in the environment relative to the second frame of reference using 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device (Abstract, “The radar fall detector system includes transmitter and receiver antennae and a signal processor that processes a reflected signal. Doppler analysis of the reflected signal determines a subject's activity and condition, and its distance to a floor”); and use the determined height metric to determine whether the person has fallen (Column 12 lines 59-65, “FIG. 4 illustrates the scene of FIG. 3 with the addition of subjects 350, 352, 254, and 356, each shown in different position relative Ta and Tb thresholds. An algorithm for detecting fall condition determines a fall when the radar does not detect the subject's (upper torso) heart/lungs above their respective thresholds while at least one of the radars detects the presence the subject”). Osterweil also discloses that the fall detector device is mounted on a wall within the environment (Column 10 lines 65-67, "For example, a cluster that is prefabricated into a rigid frame, pre-wired, and ready for mounting on a ceiling, a wall, or a standalone version"). Osterweil does not disclose an orientation sensing device to indicate an orientation of the 3D reflected wave measuring device in an environment for aligning the first frame of reference with a second frame of reference that is associated with the environment; a processor coupled to the orientation sensing device and configured to receive orientation data indicative of an orientation of the device, the processor being configured to align the first frame of reference with the second frame of reference by using the orientation data to compensate for an angular difference between the first frame of reference and the second frame of reference.
Shirai discloses
An orientation sensing device to indicate an orientation of the 3D reflected wave measuring device in an environment for aligning the first frame of reference with a second frame of reference that is associated with the environment (Page 6 lines 30-33, “the present invention provides an apparatus for correcting a deflection of central axis of an obstacle detecting apparatus, which comprises angle correcting means for correcting the angle of the obstacle detected by the obstacle detecting apparatus on the basis of the value of the deflection calculated by the deflection of central axis calculating apparatus”); a processor coupled to the orientation sensing device and configured to receive orientation data indicative of an orientation of the device, the processor being configured to align the first frame of reference with the second frame of reference by using the orientation data to compensate for an angular difference between the first frame of reference and the second frame of reference (Page 6 lines 30-33, “the present invention provides an apparatus for correcting a deflection of central axis of an obstacle detecting apparatus, which comprises angle correcting means for correcting the angle of the obstacle detected by the obstacle detecting apparatus on the basis of the value of the deflection calculated by the deflection of central axis calculating apparatus” where the apparatus is tantamount to the processor in the instant application).
Osterweil and Shirai are considered analogous arts as they both concern a radar device tracking an object in the environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Osterweil with Shirai to add in the ability for the radar device to correct for its orientation in order to improve the tracking of an object if the tracking device is skewed.
The combination of Osterweil and Shirai fail to disclose a detector device mounted on a wall within the environment.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Osterweil, and Shirai discloses
A fall detector device according to claim 1. Osterweil and Lachaine do not disclose that the processor is configured to compensate for a difference between the first frame of reference and the second frame of reference by applying a rotation matrix to one or more axes of the first frame of reference and/or to one or more coordinates of 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device.
Shirai discloses
The processor is configured to compensate for a difference between the first frame of reference and the second frame of reference by applying a rotation matrix to one or more axes of the first frame of reference and/or to one or more coordinates of 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device (Page 6 line 35, “the angle correcting means corrects the angle of the obstacle relative to the vehicle detected”; Page 6 lines 58-Page 7 lines 4, “"and provides a deflection of central axis correcting apparatus which further comprises coordinate transforming means for transforming the distance to and angle of the obstacle detected by the obstacle detecting apparatus into a position of orthogonal coordinates by solving a given equation for coordinate transformation, such that the angle correcting means corrects the angle of the obstacle relative to the vehicle by changing or alternating the equation for coordinate transformation provided by the coordinate transformation means” where an angle correction based on a coordinate transformation is tantamount to a rotation matrix).
All arts are considered analogous arts as all concern tracking an object with electromagnetic or radar signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Osterweil and Lachaine with Shirai to add in the ability for the radar device to correct for its orientation with a rotation matrix in order to improve the tracking of an object if the tracking device is skewed.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Osterweil and Shirai discloses
A fall detector device according to claim 1. Osterweil further discloses wherein the processor (Abstract, “The radar fall detector system includes transmitter and receiver antennae and a signal processor that processes a reflected signal.”) receives height data, the height data indicating a height of the device in the environment, and wherein the processor is configured to determine the height metric of the person in the environment using the height data and the 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device (Column 12 lines 59-65, “FIG. 4 illustrates the scene of FIG. 3 with the addition of subjects 350, 352, 254, and 356, each shown in different position relative Ta and Tb thresholds. An algorithm for detecting fall condition determines a fall when the radar does not detect the subject's (upper torso) heart/lungs above their respective thresholds while at least one of the radars detects the presence the subject”).
Regarding claim 10, Osterweil further discloses
A fall detector device according to claim 1, wherein the 3D reflected wave measuring device is a radar device (Abstract, " The radar fall detector system includes transmitter and receiver antennae and a signal processor that processes a reflected signal. Doppler analysis of the reflected signal determines a subject's activity and condition, and its distance to a floor").
Regarding claim 12, Osterweil discloses
A method of using a fall detector device (Abstract, “A radar fall detector system. The radar fall detector system includes transmitter and receiver antennae and a signal processor that processes a reflected signal. Doppler analysis of the reflected signal determines a subject's activity and condition, and its distance to a floor”) for determining a height metric of an object in an environment using 3D coordinates associated with the object in the environment for determining a fall condition of the object (Column 12 lines 59-65, “FIG. 4 illustrates the scene of FIG. 3 with the addition of subjects 350, 352, 254, and 356, each shown in different position relative Ta and Tb thresholds. An algorithm for detecting fall condition determines a fall when the radar does not detect the subject's (upper torso) heart/lungs above their respective thresholds while at least one of the radars detects the presence the subject”), the device comprising. a 3D reflected wave measuring device for measuring 3D coordinates of an object in the environment for determining the height metric of the object in the environment (Abstract, “A radar fall detector system”; Column 1 lines 25-28, “The present invention is directed to an apparatus and method for automatically identifying a subject, such as, for example, a human or animal, who has fallen while in a defined three-dimensional (3-D) space”; Column 12 lines 59-65, “FIG. 4 illustrates the scene of FIG. 3 with the addition of subjects 350, 352, 254, and 356, each shown in different position relative Ta and Tb thresholds. An algorithm for detecting fall condition determines a fall when the radar does not detect the subject's (upper torso) heart/lungs above their respective thresholds while at least one of the radars detects the presence the subject”), the 3D reflected wave measuring device having a 3D coordinate system having a first frame of reference (Column 12 lines 59-65, “FIG. 4 illustrates the scene of FIG. 3 with the addition of subjects 350, 352, 254, and 356, each shown in different position relative Ta and Tb thresholds. An algorithm for detecting fall condition determines a fall when the radar does not detect the subject's (upper torso) heart/lungs above their respective thresholds while at least one of the radars detects the presence the subject” where the radar’s height from the ground is the first frame of reference); the method comprising: installing the device in the environment, wherein the second frame of reference comprises a horizontal plane associated with the environment (Figure 3 elements 200a, 200b; Abstract, “The radar fall detector system includes transmitter and receiver antennae and a signal processor that processes a reflected signal. Doppler analysis of the reflected signal determines a subject's activity and condition, and its distance to a floor”); and determining the height metric of the object in the environment relative to the second frame of reference using 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device (Column 12 lines 59-65, “FIG. 4 illustrates the scene of FIG. 3 with the addition of subjects 350, 352, 254, and 356, each shown in different position relative Ta and Tb thresholds. An algorithm for detecting fall condition determines a fall when the radar does not detect the subject's (upper torso) heart/lungs above their respective thresholds while at least one of the radars detects the presence the subject”); identifying the height or 3D coordinates of person or if a person has fallen (Column 12 lines 59-65, “FIG. 4 illustrates the scene of FIG. 3 with the addition of subjects 350, 352, 254, and 356, each shown in different position relative Ta and Tb thresholds. An algorithm for detecting fall condition determines a fall when the radar does not detect the subject's (upper torso) heart/lungs above their respective thresholds while at least one of the radars detects the presence the subject”). Osterweil also discloses that the fall detector device is mounted on a wall within the environment (Column 10 lines 65-67, "For example, a cluster that is prefabricated into a rigid frame, pre-wired, and ready for mounting on a ceiling, a wall, or a standalone version"). Osterweil does not disclose an orientation sensing device to indicate an orientation of the 3D reflected wave measuring device in an environment for aligning the first frame of reference with a second frame of reference that is associated with the environment-a processor coupled to the orientation sensing device and configured to receive orientation data indicative of an orientation of the device; aligning the first frame of reference with the second frame of reference using the orientation data to compensate for an angular difference between the first frame of reference and the second frame of reference.
Shirai discloses
An orientation sensing device to indicate an orientation of the 3D reflected wave measuring device in an environment for aligning the first frame of reference with a second frame of reference that is associated with the environment (Page 6 lines 30-33, “the present invention provides an apparatus for correcting a deflection of central axis of an obstacle detecting apparatus, which comprises angle correcting means for correcting the angle of the obstacle detected by the obstacle detecting apparatus on the basis of the value of the deflection calculated by the deflection of central axis calculating apparatus”); a processor coupled to the orientation sensing device and configured to receive orientation data indicative of an orientation of the device, aligning the first frame of reference with the second frame of reference using the orientation data to compensate for an angular difference between the first frame of reference and the second frame of reference (Page 6 lines 30-33, “the present invention provides an apparatus for correcting a deflection of central axis of an obstacle detecting apparatus, which comprises angle correcting means for correcting the angle of the obstacle detected by the obstacle detecting apparatus on the basis of the value of the deflection calculated by the deflection of central axis calculating apparatus” where the apparatus is tantamount to the processor in the instant application).
Both arts are considered analogous arts as they both concern a radar device tracking an object in the environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Osterweil with Shirai to add in the ability for the radar device to correct for its orientation in order to improve the tracking of an object if the tracking device is skewed.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Osterweil, and Shirai discloses
A method according claim 12. Osterweil does not disclose the step where aligning is performed one or more times after installation of the fall detector device.
Shirai discloses
The step where aligning is performed one or more times after installation of the fall detector device (Page 6 lines 48-49, “the angle correcting means corrects the angle of the obstacle relative to the vehicle by changing the correspondence or the relation between the distance to the obstacle and the angle of radiation stored in the storage means” which happens after installation).
All arts are considered analogous arts as all concern tracking an object with electromagnetic or radar signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Osterweil and Lachaine with Shirai to add in using the alignment after installation so that the radar device and object can be aligned and tracking improved.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Osterweil, and Shirai discloses
A method according to claim 12. Osterweil does not disclose compensating for a difference between the first frame of reference and the second frame of reference comprises applying a rotation matrix to one or more axes of the first frame of reference and/or to one or more coordinates of 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device.
Shirai discloses
Compensating for a difference between the first frame of reference and the second frame of reference comprises applying a rotation matrix to one or more axes of the first frame of reference and/or to one or more coordinates of 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device (Page 6 line 35, “the angle correcting means corrects the angle of the obstacle relative to the vehicle detected”; Page 6 lines 58-Page 7 lines 4, “"and provides a deflection of central axis correcting apparatus which further comprises coordinate transforming means for transforming the distance to and angle of the obstacle detected by the obstacle detecting apparatus into a position of orthogonal coordinates by solving a given equation for coordinate transformation, such that the angle correcting means corrects the angle of the obstacle relative to the vehicle by changing or alternating the equation for coordinate transformation provided by the coordinate transformation means” where an angle correction based on a coordinate transformation is tantamount to a rotation matrix).
All arts are considered analogous arts as all concern tracking an object with electromagnetic or radar signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Osterweil with Shirai to add in the ability for the radar device to correct for its orientation with a rotation matrix in order to improve the tracking of an object if the tracking device is skewed.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Osterweil, and Shirai discloses
A method according to claim 12. Osterweil discloses the installed height of the fall detector device is stored in memory in the device as height data (Column 15 lines 14-16"The true vertical distance h of the subject 350 from the ceiling also provides the subject's proximity to the floor based on the height of the room" where the radar is installed on the ceiling), and the method comprises determining a height metric of the person in the environment relative to the second frame of reference using the height data and 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device (Column 12 lines 59-65, “FIG. 4 illustrates the scene of FIG. 3 with the addition of subjects 350, 352, 254, and 356, each shown in different position relative Ta and Tb thresholds. An algorithm for detecting fall condition determines a fall when the radar does not detect the subject's (upper torso) heart/lungs above their respective thresholds while at least one of the radars detects the presence the subject”; Abstract, “The radar fall detector system includes transmitter and receiver antennae and a signal processor that processes a reflected signal. Doppler analysis of the reflected signal determines a subject's activity and condition, and its distance to a floor”). The radar is mounted on a wall (Column 10 lines 65-67, "For example, a cluster that is prefabricated into a rigid frame, pre-wired, and ready for mounting on a ceiling, a wall, or a standalone version").
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Osterweil, and Shirai discloses
A method according to claim 12. Osterweil discloses determining the vertical displacement of the person (Column 1 lines 25-28, “The present invention is directed to an apparatus and method for automatically identifying a subject, such as, for example, a human or animal, who has fallen while in a defined three-dimensional (3-D) space”; Column 4 lines 1-3, “According to yet another object of the present invention a method is disclosed for detecting and analyzing the changes in the position of a subject and/or the rate of the change”).
Osterweil does not disclose the step of aligning the first frame of reference with the second frame of reference is performed at least one of one or more times after installation, or prior to each determination of the vertical displacement of an object in the environment.
Shirai discloses
The step of aligning the first frame of reference with the second frame of reference is performed at least one of one or more times after installation, or prior to each determination of the vertical displacement of an object in the environment (Page 6 lines 48-49, “the angle correcting means corrects the angle of the obstacle relative to the vehicle by changing the correspondence or the relation between the distance to the obstacle and the angle of radiation stored in the storage means” which happens after installation).
All arts are considered analogous arts as all concern tracking an object with electromagnetic or radar signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Osterweil and Lachaine with Shirai to add in using the alignment after installation so that the radar device and object can be aligned and tracking improved.
Regarding claim 22, Osterweil further discloses
A method according to claim 12, wherein the 3D reflected wave measuring device is a radar device (Abstract, " A radar fall detector system").
Claims 24, 25, 28, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterweil (US 7916066 B1) in view of Shirai (EP 0782008 A2) further in view of Lachaine (US20060036170A1).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Osterweil, and Shirai discloses
A fall detector device according to claim 1. Osterweil does not disclose that the height metric determined by the processor comprises a height of a weighted centre of the 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device.
Lachaine discloses
The height metric determined by the processor comprises a height of a weighted centre of the 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device (Paragraph 0010, "In some embodiments the calibration step includes determining the centers of one or more of the members within the representations, and may also include determining the coordinates of the members with respect to the reference coordinate system based on the determined centers").
All arts are considered analogous arts as all concern tracking an object with electromagnetic or radar signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Osterweil and Shirai with Lachaine to add in using the height of a weighted center as a metric for determining the height of an extended shape (versus a point) to use in further calculation.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Osterweil, Shirai, and Lachaine discloses
A fall detector device according to claim 24. Osterweil does not disclose that the height of the weighted centre of the 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device that is based on a Radar Cross Section (RCS) of each 3D reflected wave measurement.
Lachaine discloses
The height of the weighted centre of the 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device that is based on a Radar Cross Section (RCS) of each 3D reflected wave measurement (Paragraph 0010, "The elongated member can be of any shape so long as cross-sectional images taken at various angles through the member are concentric, and this condition will be fulfilled for most straight, rod-like members").
All arts are considered analogous arts as all concern tracking an object with electromagnetic or radar signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Osterweil and Shirai with Lachaine to add in using the height of a weighted center from a radar cross section as the cross section tells the radar/user the size of the object in radar vision which can be used to calculate the center (i.e., circle shape versus rectangle).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Osterweil, and Shirai discloses
A method according to claim 20. Osterweil does not disclose that the height metric comprises a height of a weighted centre of the 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device.
Lachaine discloses
The height metric comprises a height of a weighted centre of the 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device (Paragraph 0010, "In some embodiments the calibration step includes determining the centers of one or more of the members within the representations, and may also include determining the coordinates of the members with respect to the reference coordinate system based on the determined centers").
All arts are considered analogous arts as all concern tracking an object with electromagnetic or radar signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Osterweil and Shirai with Lachaine to add in using the height of a weighted center as a metric for determining the height of an extended shape (versus a point) to use in further calculation.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Osterweil, Shirai, and Lachaine discloses
A method according to claim 28. Osterweil and Shirai do not disclose that the height of the weighted centre of the 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device is based on a Radar Cross Section (RCS) of each 3D reflected wave measurement.
Lachaine discloses
The height of the weighted centre of the 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device is based on a Radar Cross Section (RCS) of each 3D reflected wave measurement (Paragraph 0010, "The elongated member can be of any shape so long as cross-sectional images taken at various angles through the member are concentric, and this condition will be fulfilled for most straight, rod-like members").
All arts are considered analogous arts as all concern tracking an object with electromagnetic or radar signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Osterweil and Shirai with Lachaine to add in using the height of a weighted center from a radar cross section as the cross section tells the radar/user the size of the object in radar vision which can be used to calculate the center (i.e., circle shape versus rectangle).
Claims 11, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterweil (US 7916066 B1) in view of Shirai (EP 0782008 A2) further in view of Down (GB2573090A).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Osterweil, Shirai, and Lachaine, disclose
A fall detector device according to claim 1. The combination of Osterweil, Shirai, and Lachaine does not disclose an orientation sensing device comprising at least one of a gyroscope, a 3 axis accelerometer, or a level sensor.
Down discloses
An orientation sensing device comprising at least one of a gyroscope, a 3 axis accelerometer, or a level sensor (Page 1 lines 20-25, “The position of a remote object may be determined using a number of different techniques. For example, an apparatus for determining the position of a remote object may comprise a distance sensor (e.g., rangefinder, for example a laser rangefinder) for measuring the line-of-sight distance to the remote object, and one or more direction sensors (e.g., one or more accelerometers and/or gyroscopes) for measuring the direction (e.g. the elevation and/or azimuthal angle) of the remote object”).
All arts are considered analogous arts as all concern tracking an object with electromagnetic or radar signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Osterweil, Shirai, and Lachaine with Down to add in the specific use of a gyroscope or accelerometer as a specific component of the orientation calculation unit, to orient the radar and the object in the environment for improved tracking.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Osterweil, Shirai, and Lachaine disclose
A method according to claim 12. The combination of Osterweil, Shirai, and Lachaine does not disclose an orientation sensing device comprising at least one of a gyroscope, a 3 axis accelerometer, or a level sensor.
Down discloses
An orientation sensing device comprising at least one of a gyroscope, a 3 axis accelerometer or a level sensor (Page 1 lines 20-25, “The position of a remote object may be determined using a number of different techniques. For example, an apparatus for determining the position of a remote object may comprise a distance sensor (e.g. rangefinder, for example a laser rangefinder) for measuring the line-of-sight distance to the remote object, and one or more direction sensors (e.g. one or more accelerometers and/or gyroscopes) for measuring the direction (e.g. the elevation and/or azimuthal angle) of the remote object”).
All arts are considered analogous arts as all concern tracking an object with electromagnetic or radar signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Osterweil , Shirai, and Lachaine with Down to add in the specific use of a gyroscope or accelerometer as a specific component of the orientation calculation unit, to orient the radar and the object in the environment for improved tracking.
Claims 26, 27, 30, 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osterweil (US 7916066 B1) in view of Shirai (EP 0782008 A2) further in view of Okamoto (US 20180259634 A1).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Osterweil, Shirai, and Lachaine discloses
A fall detector device according to claim 1. The combination of Osterweil, Shirai, and Lachaine does not disclose that the height metric determined by the processor comprises a maximum height of the 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device.
Okamoto discloses
The height metric determined by the processor comprises a maximum height of the 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device (Paragraph 0047, “FIG. 1D depicts an example of the processing result of the target height estimation processing. As can be seen from FIG. 1D, the height of the target TG, which is the superjacent object, becomes the stable estimated target height values by obtaining the moving average values of the maximum values from the previous calculation results having variations”).
All arts are considered analogous arts as all concern tracking an object with electromagnetic or radar signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Osterweil, Shirai, and Lachaine with Okamoto to add in the usage of the maximum height as a metric for determining the height of an extended body that is not a point.
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Osterweil, Shirai, and Lachaine discloses
A fall detector device according to claim 1. The combination of Osterweil, Shirai, and Lachaine does not disclose that the height metric determined by the processor comprises an average height of the 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device.
Okamoto discloses
The height metric determined by the processor comprises an average height of the 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device (Paragraph 0047, “FIG. 1D depicts an example of the processing result of the target height estimation processing. As can be seen from FIG. 1D, the height of the target TG, which is the superjacent object, becomes the stable estimated target height values by obtaining the moving average values of the maximum values from the previous calculation results having variations”).
All arts are considered analogous arts as all concern tracking an object with electromagnetic or radar signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Osterweil, Shirai, and Lachaine with Okamoto to add in the usage of an average value to mitigate or detect outlier values and to use as a metric for determining the height of an extended body.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Osterweil, Shirai, and Lachaine discloses
A method according to claim 20. The combination of Osterweil, Shirai, and Lachaine does not disclose that the height metric comprises a maximum height of the 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device.
Okamoto discloses
The height metric comprises a maximum height of the 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device (Paragraph 0047, “FIG. 1D depicts an example of the processing result of the target height estimation processing. As can be seen from FIG. 1D, the height of the target TG, which is the superjacent object, becomes the stable estimated target height values by obtaining the moving average values of the maximum values from the previous calculation results having variations”).
All arts are considered analogous arts as all concern tracking an object with electromagnetic or radar signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Osterweil, Shirai, and Lachaine with Okamoto to add in the usage of the maximum height as a metric for determining the height of an extended body that is not a point.
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Osterweil, Shirai, and Lachaine discloses
A method according to claim 20. The combination of Osterweil, Shirai, and Lachaine does not disclose that the height metric comprises an average height of the 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device.
Okamoto discloses
The height metric comprises an average height of the 3D reflected wave measurements received by the 3D reflected wave measuring device (Paragraph 0047, “FIG. 1D depicts an example of the processing result of the target height estimation processing. As can be seen from FIG. 1D, the height of the target TG, which is the superjacent object, becomes the stable estimated target height values by obtaining the moving average values of the maximum values from the previous calculation results having variations”).
All arts are considered analogous arts as all concern tracking an object with electromagnetic or radar signals. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Osterweil, Shirai, and Lachaine with Okamoto to add in the usage of an average value to mitigate or detect outlier values and to use as a metric for determining the height of an extended body.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D DOZE whose telephone number is (571)272-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:40am - 5:40pm ET.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on (571) 270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER DAVON DOZE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648