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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites the steps of removing anomalies present in the CSI data, performing phase compensation or amplitude compensation, detecting a number of distinct respiration rates based on the CSI data and determining the number of people that have that distinct respiration rate.
The limitations of removing anomalies present in the CSI data, performing phase compensation or amplitude compensation, detecting a number of distinct respiration rates based on the CSI data and determining the number of people that have that distinct respiration rate, as drafted, are processes that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processor”, the claims are direct to concepts relating to organizing information in a way that can be performed mentally or analogous to human mental work and nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the processor, “removing”, “performing”, “detecting” and “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually removing anomalies, correcting the CSI and making a determination about the respiratory rates. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a transceiver. These transmit/receive antenna involve mere data gathering and amount to insignificant extra-solutional activity, specifically pre-solutional activity. Additionally, the processor is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Similarly the dependent claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept and well-understood, routine and conventional activity is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 8/ and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. "Multi-person breathing rate estimation using time-reversal on WiFi platforms" in view of Gao et al. "Device-Free Multi-Person Respiration Monitoring Using WiFi"
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Chen discloses a method comprising:
obtaining Wi-Fi channel state information (CSI) data on a transmit antenna/receive antenna pair over a time period ([pg. 1059, column 2] the system uses WiFi based methods to collect health information from CSI data);
removing one or more anomalies present in the CSI data relative to a baseline that is a normal CSI type identified within the CSI data for the transmit antenna/receive antenna pair ([pg. 1061, column 2, ¶2] the system discards CSI data outside a certain range related to human breathing);
performing at least one of phase compensation and amplitude compensation on the CSI data to generate clean CSI data ([pg. 1061, section 3] the data is normalized and scaled to compensate);
detecting a number of distinct respiration rates based on the clean CSI data ([pg. 1061, column 2] multiple breathing rates are determined); and
Chen does not specifically disclose for each of the distinct respiration rates, determining a number of people that share that distinct respiration rate. Gao teaches a similar system for determining respiratory information from CSI data that determines a number of people sharing a respiratory rate ([pg. 14084, section II][pg. 14086, section C] the system separates users with the same respiration rate using other information from the antenna). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Chen with the separation method of Gao as it is no more than the simple substitution of one discrimination method for another to arrive at the predictable result of determining persons and their respiration rates in a room with multiple people.
Claim(s) 3, 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. and Gao et al. in view of Xu et al. US 2019/0028320.
Regarding claims 3, 9 and 17, Chen does not specifically disclose the recited phase compensation. Xu teaches a similar WiFi based monitoring device where the phase compensation comprises applying a mean filter to remove one or more phase errors due to packet boundary detection error; and subtracting a fitted linear function to remove one or more other phase errors due to (i) a delay caused by a sampling frequency offset and (ii) a frequency offset caused by central frequency offset ([¶174,179-181,185] a linear function is subtracted from the CSI and filtering the anomalous phase information). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing combine the device of Chen with the compensation of Xu in order to compensate for phase corruption ([¶179]).
Claim(s) 4-7, 13-14 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. and Gao et al. in view of Liu et al. “contactless respiration monitoring via off-the-shelf WIFI devices”.
Regarding claim 4, 11 and 18, Chen does not disclose performing the amplitude compensation on the CSI data comprises: clustering amplitudes of the CSI data using a clustering algorithm; and normalizing the CSI data by dividing the CSI data by a mean CSI amplitude of a corresponding CSI data cluster. Liu teaches a similar WIFI biometric detection system that uses a clustering algorithm that identifies a normal CSI type and performs compensation ([¶2470] the data is normalized by the median or mean). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Chen with the clustering algorithm of Liu in order to have more reliable detection ([pg. 2476]).
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Chen does not disclose detecting the number of distinct respiration rates based on the clean CSI data comprises: selecting subcarriers containing respiration signals based on respiration energy ratio (RER) values obtained from the clean CSI data; identifying fast Fourier transform (FFT) peaks corresponding to respiration rates of different people; and setting the number of identified FFT peaks as the number of distinct respiration rates. Liu teaches a similar WIFI biometric detection system that uses a clustering algorithm that identifies a normal CSI type and using the FFT to determine respiration ([pg. 2471]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to combine the device of Chen with the clustering algorithm of Liu in order to have more reliable detection ([pg. 2476]).
Regarding claim 6, 13 and 20, Liu teaches wherein determining the number of people that have that distinct respiration rate comprises: for each of the identified FFT peaks: filtering the clean CSI data to obtain filtered CSI data corresponding to that identified FFT peak; determining real and imaginary parts of the filtered CSI data in a complex plane; detecting a breathing phase difference between the real and imaginary parts; and determining the number of people that have that distinct respiration rate based on the breathing phase difference ([¶pg. 2471] the IFFT is used to get the complex plane signal and the phase difference of that signal is the breathing rate).
Regarding claim 7 and 14, Gao teaches determining the number of people that have that distinct respiration rate comprises: determining the number of people based on a continuous series of instant detection results of numbers of people ([pg. 14084, section II][pg. 14086, section C] the system separates users with the same respiration rate using other information from the antenna).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 101 rejection, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The transmit/receive antenna pair is pre-solutional to the judicial exception and performs mere data gathering. Removing one or mor anomalies is not considered a mathematical calculation. It is considered a mental concept as it could be as simple as the user removing abnormal segments they see in the data.
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 13-14, filed 12/30/25, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 USC 102 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 Chen and Gao.
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 MICHAEL ANTHONY CATINA whose telephone number is (571)270-5951. The examiner can normally be reached 10-6pm.
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, Robert Chen can be reached at 5712723672. 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.
/MICHAEL A CATINA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE W CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights