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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 10/02/2025 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner. Claims 1-4, 7-8, 15, and 18 have been amended. Claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-21 are currently pending in the application with claims 1, 7, and 18 being independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7-10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gallagher et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0239815) hereinafter “Gallagher”
Regarding claim 1, Gallagher discloses a vital sign detection device [see abstract of Gallagher] comprising:
a transmitter [the array of Doppler radar sensors 18, 20, and 22 are the transmitter; see [0027]] configured to emit electromagnetic waves toward a subject; [see [0031]-[0033]; each of the sensors transmit signals wirelessly to the person seating in the seat] from a single location [ the examiner notes that in the broadest reasonable interpretation, the area containing all the radar sensors could be considered as “a single location” sine the term location is defined as “a position or a site occupied or marked by some feature” (see Merriam Webster dictionary); here the location refers to the area that contains all of the radar sensors 18, 20 and 22 together]
a scan controller [controller 24] configured to change a directivity of transmissions from the transmitter so as to scan an irradiation region of the subject with the electromagnetic waves; [see [0037]-[0039]; the controller controls the first, second and third sensors to emit signal each in a different directions towards the person]
a receiver configured to receive a plurality of returned electromagnetic waves with different directivities after having reflected off the subject; and [the array of Doppler radar sensors, 18, 20, and 22 each receive the reflected signals back; see [0031]-[0033]; since each of the sensors of the array has transmitted to a different direction, the reflections are also coming from different directions]
a vital sign extraction circuitry [controller 24] configured to
identify, from the plurality of returned electromagnetic waves, a first electromagnetic wave having a higher signal intensity corresponding to vital signs of the subject [see [0030]-[0031] and FIG. 1, the first sensor signals are coming from the heart area of the person, so they have the highest vital sign intensity] and a second electromagnetic wave having a highest signal intensity corresponding to characteristics other than vital signs of the subject. [see [0032]; the second sensor receives data from a location offset from the heart of the person so it has the highest data regarding motion of the vehicle which is not vital signs]
extract vital signs of the subject [see [0042] of Gallagher] using a difference between distance information [see [0043]-[0044] disclosing that the vital signs are extracted by subtracting the second sensor signal corresponding to vital signs from the heart from the first sensor signal coming from a place offset from the heart and mostly containing information regarding motion of the person in the vehicle] of the subject calculated based on the identified first electromagnetic wave and distance information of the subject calculated based on the identified second electromagnetic [see [0032]; the second sensor receives data from a location offset from the heart of the person so it has the highest data regarding motion of the vehicle which is not vital signs]
Regarding claim 5, Gallagher further discloses a vehicle comprising: a seat; [see [0026] and FIG. 1] and the vital sign detection device according to Claim 1 that is disposed in the seat. [see rejection of claim 1 and FIG/ 1; the sensors are located in the seat]
Regarding claim 7, Gallagher discloses a vital sign detection device [see abstract of Gallagher] comprising:
a transmitter [the array of Doppler radar sensors 18, 20, and 22 are the transmitter; see [0027]] configured to transmit electromagnetic waves toward a subject; [see [0031]-[0033]; each of the sensors transmit signals wirelessly to the person seating in the seat] from a single location [ the examiner notes that in the broadest reasonable interpretation, the area containing all the radar sensors could be considered as “a single location” sine the term location is defined as “a position or a site occupied or marked by some feature” (see Merriam Webster dictionary); here the location refers to the area that contains all of the radar sensors 18, 20 and 22 together]
a scan controller [controller 24] configured to change a directivity of transmissions from the transmitter so as to scan an irradiation region of the subject with the electromagnetic waves; [see [0037]-[0039]; the controller controls the first, second and third sensors to emit signal each in a different directions towards the person]
a receiver configured to receive a plurality of returned electromagnetic waves with different directivities after having reflected off the subject; [the array of Doppler radar sensors, 18, 20, and 22 each receive the reflected signals back; see [0031]-[0033]; since each of the sensors of the array has transmitted to a different direction, the reflections are also coming from different directions]
directivity determination circuitry [controller 24] configured to determine, from returned energy received by the receiver,[see [0015]; the controller receives returned signals from both the first and second sensors and distinguishes between them] a first directivity of electromagnetic waves applied to the irradiation region where vital signs of the subject easily appear [see [0030]-[0031] and FIG. 1, the first sensor signals are coming from the heart area of the person, so they have the highest vital sign intensity] and a second directivity of electromagnetic waves applied to the irradiation region where vital signs of the subject are less likely to appear; [see [0032]; the second sensor receives data from a location offset from the heart of the person so it has the highest data regarding motion of the vehicle which is not vital signs]
vital sign extraction circuitry [controller 24] configured to extract vital signs of the subject [see [0042] of Gallagher] based on a difference between information [see [0043]-[0044] disclosing that the vital signs are extracted by subtracting the second sensor signal corresponding to vital signs from the heart from the first sensor signal coming from a place offset from the heart and mostly containing information regarding motion of the person in the vehicle] about a distance from the vital sign detection device to the subject calculated based on a first electromagnetic wave having the first directivity that has been reflected from the subject and received by the receiver [see [0030]-[0031] and FIG. 1, the first sensor signals are coming from the heart area of the person (i.e. first direction) ]and information about a distance from the vital sign detection device to the subject calculated based on second electromagnetic wave having the determined second directivity that has been reflected off the subject and received by the receiver. [see [0032]; the second sensor receives data from a location offset from the heart of the person (i.e. second direction)]
Regarding claim 8, Gallagher further discloses that the receiver is configured to calculate a difference [see [0043]-[0044] disclosing that the vital signs are extracted by subtracting the second sensor signal corresponding to vital signs from the heart from the first sensor signal coming from a place offset from the heart and mostly containing information regarding motion of the person in the vehicle] between information about a distance from the vital sign detection device to an irradiation point of the subject calculated based on the first electromagnetic wave having the first directivity [see [0030]-[0031] and FIG. 1, the first sensor signals are coming from the heart area of the person (i.e. first direction) which contains heart rate (vital signs) ]and information about a second distance from the vital sign detection device to a second irradiation point of the subject calculated based on the second electromagnetic wave having the second directivity that has been reflected from the subject and received by the receiver. see [0032]; the second sensor receives data from a location offset from the heart of the person (i.e. second direction)]
Regarding claim 9, Gallagher further discloses that the directivity determination circuitry [controller 24] is further configured to determine an irradiation direction of electromagnetic waves that are a candidate for each of the first directivity and the second directivity,[see [0015]; the controller receives returned signals from both the first and second sensors and distinguishes between them] and set an irradiation direction from the transmitter to the determined irradiation direction accordingly,[controller can determine which signal corresponds to the vital sign and is coming from the heart direction and which one is coming from away from the heart signal sensor; see [0042]] and determine the first directivity and the second directivity and set directivities of transmissions from the transmitter to the determined first directivity and the determined second directivity. [since each sensor has a fixed direction towards to person, by distinguishing between the sensors, the controller can distinguish between different directivity of signals]
Regarding claim 10, Gallagher further discloses that the directivity determination circuitry [controller 24] is further configured to determine an irradiation direction of electromagnetic waves that are a candidate for each of the first directivity and the second directivity,[see [0015]; the controller receives returned signals from both the first and second sensors and distinguishes between them] and set an irradiation direction from the transmitter to the determined irradiation direction accordingly,[controller can determine which signal corresponds to the vital sign and is coming from the heart direction and which one is coming from away from the heart signal sensor; see [0042]] and determine the first directivity and the second directivity and set directivities of transmissions from the transmitter to the determined first directivity and the determined second directivity. [since each sensor has a fixed direction towards to person, by distinguishing between the sensors, the controller can distinguish between different directivity of signals]
Regarding claim 17, Gallagher further discloses a vehicle comprising: a seat; [see FIG. 1 and [0026]] and the vital sign detection device according to Claim 7 that is disposed in the seat. [see rejection of claim 1 and FIG. 7; the sensors are located in the seat]
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 11-15 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0239815) hereinafter “Gallagher” in view of Mulder et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0135137) hereinafter “Mulder”.
Regarding claim 2, Gallagher discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above [see rejection of claim 1]
Gallagher further discloses directivity determination circuitry [controller 24] configured to determine, from electromagnetic waves received by the receiver, [see [0042]; both the first and second signals reflected and received by first and second sensor are received by the controller which can distinguish between them since it subtracts the second one from the first one] a first directivity of the first electromagnetic wave that shows vital signs of the subject and has the highest signal intensity of a plurality of electromagnetic waves received by the receiver [see [0030]-[0031] and FIG. 1, the first sensor signals are coming from the heart area of the person (i.e. they have the first directivity), so they have the highest vital sign intensity] and a second directivity of the electromagnetic wave that shows characteristics other than vital signs of the subject and has the highest signal intensity of the plurality of electromagnetic waves, [see [0032]; the second sensor receives data from a location offset from the heart of the person (i.e. second directivity) so it has the highest data regarding motion of the vehicle which is not vital signs]
wherein the scan controller includes a processing circuitry configured to a control directional scanning of transmissions of the transmitter, extract vital signs of the subject based on a difference between information about a distance from the vital sign detection device to an electromagnetic wave irradiation point of the subject calculated based on the first electromagnetic wave associated with the first directivity and information about a distance from the vital sign detection device to an electromagnetic wave irradiation point of the subject calculated based on the second electromagnetic wave associated with the second directivity.
Gallagher does not expressly disclose store the first directivity the second directivity in a memory, and the vital sign extraction circuitry is configured to read the first directivity and the second directivity from the memory.
Mulder, directed towards a vital sign detection wireless unit installed in a chair [see abstract of Mulder] further discloses to store the first directivity the second directivity in a memory, and the vital sign extraction circuitry is configured to read the first directivity and the second directivity from the memory [see [0022] disclosing storage means to store received signals (which comprises the first and second directivity) ]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the device of Gallagher such that it is able to store the first directivity the second directivity in a memory, and the vital sign extraction circuitry is configured to read the first directivity and the second directivity from the memory according to the teachings of Ito in order to evaluate a time history of the data [see [0022] of Mulder]
Regarding claim 3, Gallagher as modified by Mulder discloses all the limitations of claim 2 above [see rejection of claim 2]
Mulder further discloses that frequency bands of the first electromagnetic wave having the first directivity and the second electromagnetic wave having the second directivity are the same. [see Fig. 5 and [0055] of Mulder disclosing that a single transmitter transmits signals to a span of angles which is at the same frequency]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the device of Gallagher such that the frequency bands of the first electromagnetic wave having the first directivity and the second electromagnetic wave having the second directivity are the same according to the teachings of Ito in order to use a single source transmitter for all of the different transmission directions [see [0055] of Mulder]
Regarding claim 6, Gallagher as modified by Mulder discloses a vehicle comprising: a seat; [see FIG. 1 and [0026] of Gallagher] and the vital sign detection device according to Claim 2 that is disposed in the seat. [see rejection of claim 2]
Regarding claim 11, Gallagher discloses all the limitations of claim 9 above [see rejection of claim 9]
Gallagher does not disclose that the directivity determination circuitry is further configured to determine, for each candidate, an irradiation range from the transmitter to the subject and a size of a scan angle at which scanning is performed in the irradiation range, and the scan controller is configured to control the transmitter to emit transmissions in the determined irradiation range at the determined size of a scan angle.
Mulder further discloses that the directivity determination circuitry is further configured to determine, for each candidate, an irradiation range from the transmitter to the subject and a size of a scan angle at which scanning is performed in the irradiation range, [see [0050]-[0052]; the range of angles of transmission are known and predetermined; see FIG. 7] and the scan controller is configured to control the transmitter to emit transmissions in the determined irradiation range at the determined size of a scan angle [see [0010] of Mulder]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the device of Gallagher such that the directivity determination circuitry is further configured to determine, for each candidate, an irradiation range from the transmitter to the subject and a size of a scan angle at which scanning is performed in the irradiation range, and the scan controller is configured to control the transmitter to emit transmissions in the determined irradiation range at the determined size of a scan angle according to the teachings of Mulder in order to know the direction of transmission and reflection and be able to track where the vital signs could be expected [see [0008] of Mulder]
Regarding claim 12, Gallagher discloses all the limitations of claim 10 above [see rejection of claim 10]
Gallagher does not disclose that the directivity determination circuitry is further configured to determine, for each candidate, an irradiation range from the transmitter to the subject and a size of a scan angle at which scanning is performed in the irradiation range, and the scan controller is configured to control the transmitter to emit transmissions in the determined irradiation range at the determined size of a scan angle.
Mulder further discloses that the directivity determination circuitry is further configured to determine, for each candidate, an irradiation range from the transmitter to the subject and a size of a scan angle at which scanning is performed in the irradiation range, [see [0050]-[0052]; the range of angles of transmission are known and predetermined; see FIG. 7] and the scan controller is configured to control the transmitter to emit transmissions in the determined irradiation range at the determined size of a scan angle [see [0010] of Mulder]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the device of Gallagher such that the directivity determination circuitry is further configured to determine, for each candidate, an irradiation range from the transmitter to the subject and a size of a scan angle at which scanning is performed in the irradiation range, and the scan controller is configured to control the transmitter to emit transmissions in the determined irradiation range at the determined size of a scan angle according to the teachings of Mulder in order to know the direction of transmission and reflection and be able to track where the vital signs could be expected [see [0008] of Mulder]
Regarding claim 13, Gallagher discloses all the limitations of claim 9 above [see rejection of claim 9]
Gallagher does not disclose that the directivity determination circuitry is configured to compare a plurality of reception waveforms that have been determined as candidates for the first directivity by the candidate determination portion with a model waveform of an electromagnetic wave having the first directivity prepared in advance, calculate a degree of similarity between each of the reception waveforms and the model waveform, and determine the first directivity.
Mulder further discloses that the directivity determination circuitry is configured to compare a plurality of reception waveforms that have been determined as candidates for the first directivity by the candidate determination portion with a model waveform of an electromagnetic wave having the first directivity prepared in advance [see [0058] disclosing that the signal can be compared to average amplitudes of a previous measurement sequence (i.e. the model waveform)] , calculate a degree of similarity between each of the reception waveforms and the model waveform, and determine the first directivity.[see [0058] disclosing that the degree of alignment between the new measurement and the model data is determined: “ If the average amplitudes have remained approximately of the same order as the amplitudes of the last measurement sequences, the routine continues with determining the direction αmax of the strongest signal (S220).”]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the device of Gallagher such that the directivity determination circuitry is configured to compare a plurality of reception waveforms that have been determined as candidates for the first directivity by the candidate determination portion with a model waveform of an electromagnetic wave having the first directivity prepared in advance, calculate a degree of similarity between each of the reception waveforms and the model waveform, and determine the first directivity according to the teachings of Mulder in order to know the direction of transmission and reflection and be able to track where the vital signs could be expected [see [0008] of Mulder]
Regarding claim 14, Gallagher discloses all the limitations of claim 10 above [see rejection of claim 10]
Gallagher does not disclose that the directivity determination circuitry is configured to compare a plurality of reception waveforms that have been determined as candidates for the first directivity by the candidate determination portion with a model waveform of an electromagnetic wave having the first directivity prepared in advance, calculate a degree of similarity between each of the reception waveforms and the model waveform, and determine the first directivity.
Mulder further discloses that the directivity determination circuitry is configured to compare a plurality of reception waveforms that have been determined as candidates for the first directivity by the candidate determination portion with a model waveform of an electromagnetic wave having the first directivity prepared in advance [see [0058] disclosing that the signal can be compared to average amplitudes of a previous measurement sequence (i.e. the model waveform)] , calculate a degree of similarity between each of the reception waveforms and the model waveform, and determine the first directivity.[see [0058] disclosing that the degree of alignment between the new measurement and the model data is determined: “ If the average amplitudes have remained approximately of the same order as the amplitudes of the last measurement sequences, the routine continues with determining the direction αmax of the strongest signal (S220).”]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the device of Gallagher such that the directivity determination circuitry is configured to compare a plurality of reception waveforms that have been determined as candidates for the first directivity by the candidate determination portion with a model waveform of an electromagnetic wave having the first directivity prepared in advance, calculate a degree of similarity between each of the reception waveforms and the model waveform, and determine the first directivity according to the teachings of Mulder in order to know the direction of transmission and reflection and be able to track where the vital signs could be expected [see [0008] of Mulder]
Regarding claim 15, Gallagher discloses all the limitations of claim 8 above [see rejection of claim 8]
Mulder further discloses that a frequency band of a first electromagnetic wave having the first directivity and a frequency band of a second electromagnetic wave having the second directivity are the same. [see Fig. 5 and [0055] of Mulder disclosing that a single transmitter transmits signals to a span of angles which is at the same frequency]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the device of Gallagher such that the frequency bands of the first electromagnetic wave having the first directivity and the second electromagnetic wave having the second directivity are the same according to the teachings of Ito in order to use a single source transmitter for all of the different transmission directions [see [0055] of Mulder]
Regarding claim 18, Gallagher discloses a vital sign detection method [see abstract of Gallagher] comprising:
directing with a scan controller [controller 24] an electromagnetic wave emitted from a transmitter at a single location[ the examiner notes that in the broadest reasonable interpretation, the area containing all the radar sensors could be considered as “a single location” sine the term location is defined as “a position or a site occupied or marked by some feature” (see Merriam Webster dictionary); here the location refers to the area that contains all of the radar sensors 18, 20 and 22 together] to scan an irradiation region of a subject by changing a directivity of transmissions from the transmitter; [see [0037]-[0039]; the controller controls the first, second and third sensors to emit signal each in a different directions towards the person]
receiving a plurality of reflected electromagnetic waves having different directivities after reflection off the subject; [the array of Doppler radar sensors, 18, 20, and 22 each receive the reflected signals back; see [0031]-[0033]; since each of the sensors of the array has transmitted to a different direction, the reflections are also coming from different directions]
extracting, with a processor, [controller 24] vital signs of the subject by
first, selecting from the plurality of reflected electromagnetic waves, a first electromagnetic wave that shows vital signs of the subject and has a highest signal intensity, [see [0043]-[0044] disclosing that the vital signs are extracted by subtracting the second sensor signal corresponding to vital signs from the heart from the first sensor signal coming from a place offset from the heart and mostly containing information regarding motion of the person in the vehicle] and a second electromagnetic wave having characteristics other than vital signs of the subject and has a highest signal intensity [see [0032]; the second sensor receives data from a location offset from the heart of the person so it has the highest data regarding motion of the vehicle which is not vital signs] and
calculating a difference between distance information of the subject [see [0043]-[0044] disclosing that the vital signs are extracted by subtracting the second sensor signal corresponding to vital signs from the heart from the first sensor signal coming from a place offset from the heart and mostly containing information regarding motion of the person in the vehicle] calculated based on a first electromagnetic wave [see [0030]-[0031] and FIG. 1, the first sensor signals are coming from the heart area of the person, so they have the highest vital sign intensity] and distance information of the subject calculated based on the second electromagnetic wave [see [0032]; the second sensor receives data from a location offset from the heart of the person so it has the highest data regarding motion of the vehicle which is not vital signs]
Gallagher does not expressly disclose comparing a size of vital signs of the subject extracted in the extracting with a predetermined threshold value; and performing re-extraction under a condition the size of vital signs of the subject extracted in the vital sign extraction step does not exceed the predetermined threshold value as a result of the comparing, and repeatedly performing the directing, receiving, and extracting.
Mulder, directed towards determining vital signs of a person using wireless signals [see abstract of Mulder] further discloses comparing a size of vital signs of the subject extracted in the extracting with a predetermined threshold value [threshold value ± x] ; and performing re-extraction under a condition the size of vital signs of the subject extracted in the vital sign extraction step does not exceed the predetermined threshold value as a result of the comparing, and repeatedly performing the directing, receiving, and extracting [see [0058]; if the vital sign signals are not detected within a certain threshold level, the routine of a directing, receiving and extracting is repeated]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the method of Gallagher such that it includes comparing a size of vital signs of the subject extracted in the extracting with a predetermined threshold value; and performing re-extraction under a condition the size of vital signs of the subject extracted in the vital sign extraction step does not exceed the predetermined threshold value as a result of the comparing, and repeatedly performing the directing, receiving, and extracting according to the teachings of Mulder in order to produce a vital sign result that contains enough information to be useful to the user.
Regarding claim 19, Gallagher as modified by Mulder discloses all the limitations of claim 18 [see rejection of claim 18 above]
Gallagher further discloses that the at least the directing and receiving are performed inside of a vehicle while the subject is disposed in a seat of the vehicle. [see FIG. 1 and [0026] of Gallagher]
Regarding claim 20, Gallagher as modified by Mulder discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage device having computer readable instructions [see [0071]-[[0072] of Gallagher] stored therein that when executed by a processor cause the processor to perform at least the comparing and the extracting of Claim 18.
Regarding claim 21, Gallagher discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]
Gallagher does not expressly disclose comparing a size of vital signs of the subject extracted in the extracting with a predetermined threshold value; and performing re-extraction under a condition the size of vital signs of the subject extracted in the vital sign extraction step does not exceed the predetermined threshold value as a result of the comparing, and repeatedly performing the directing, receiving, and extracting.
Mulder, directed towards determining vital signs of a person using wireless signals [see abstract of Mulder] further discloses comparing a size of vital signs of the subject extracted in the extracting with a predetermined threshold value [threshold value ± x] ; and performing re-extraction under a condition the size of vital signs of the subject extracted in the vital sign extraction step does not exceed the predetermined threshold value as a result of the comparing, and repeatedly performing the directing, receiving, and extracting [see [0058]; if the vital sign signals are not detected within a certain threshold level, the routine of a directing, receiving and extracting is repeated]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the method of Gallagher such that it includes comparing a size of vital signs of the subject extracted in the extracting with a predetermined threshold value; and performing re-extraction under a condition the size of vital signs of the subject extracted in the vital sign extraction step does not exceed the predetermined threshold value as a result of the comparing, and repeatedly performing the directing, receiving, and extracting according to the teachings of Mulder in order to produce a vital sign result that contains enough information to be useful to the user.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0239815) hereinafter “Gallagher” in view of Mulder et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0135137) hereinafter “Mulder” as modified by claim 2 above, and further in view of Breed et al. (U.S. 2003/0209893) hereinafter “Breed”.
Regarding claim 4, Gallagher as modified by Mulder discloses all the limitations of claim 2 [see rejection of claim 2 above]
Gallagher as modified by Mulder does not disclose a reflector configured to reflect to the receiver the second electromagnetic wave having the second directivity emitted from the transmitter.
Breed, directed towards detecting vital signs of a person seating in a vehicle [see abstract of Breed] further discloses a reflector configured to reflect to the receiver the second electromagnetic wave having the second directivity emitted from the transmitter. [see [1524]-[01525] of Breed]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the method of Gallagher as modified by Mulder such that it includes a reflector configured to reflect to the receiver the second electromagnetic wave having the second directivity emitted from the transmitter according to the teachings of Breed in order to allow for change of the direction of transmission quickly and efficiently. [see [01524] of Breed]
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gallagher et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0239815) hereinafter “Gallagher” in view of in view of Breed et al. (U.S. 2003/0209893) hereinafter “Breed”
Regarding claim 16, Gallagher discloses all the limitations of claim 8 [see rejection of claim 8 above]
Gallagher does not disclose a reflector configured to reflect to the receiver the second electromagnetic wave having the second directivity emitted from the transmitter.
Breed, directed towards detecting vital signs of a person seating in a vehicle [see abstract of Breed] further discloses a reflector configured to reflect to the receiver the second electromagnetic wave having the second directivity emitted from the transmitter. [see [1524]-[01525] of Breed]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the method of Gallagher such that it includes a reflector configured to reflect to the receiver the second electromagnetic wave having the second directivity emitted from the transmitter according to the teachings of Breed in order to allow for change of the direction of transmission quickly and efficiently. [see [01524] of Breed]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the added amendments to the claims, the applicant has argued that the amendment requiring the transmitter emitting from “a single location” would distinquish the claim from Gallagher.
In response, the examiner notes that as it was explained in the rejection section of the claims above, the term “location” is a relatively broad term which is defined as “a position or a site occupied or marked by some feature” (see Merriam Webster dictionary). Here the location refers to the area that contains all of the radar sensors 18, 20 and 22 together. The examiner is advised to use more specific language to distinguish the claim from the prior art of record.
Similarly, the applicant has argued that Gallagher does not scan a region and analyze a plurality of returned EM waves to determine the highest intensity for vital and noise, instead it is static and depends entirely on the initial physical placement of sensors.
The examiner generally agrees with the applicant that the instant application has these differences compared with the prior art of record. However, these differences are NOT reflected in the claim language. Claim 1 merely requires “identify, from the plurality of EM waves, a first EM wave having a highest signal intensity corresponding to vital signs/noise”. The claim is silent on HOW this identification is achieved. Unlike what the applicant has provided in their argument, the claim does not require4 scanning a region or analyzing a plurality of EM waves to determine this highest intensity vital/noise signal. Therefore, even if the method of Gallagher depends entirely on the positional knowledge of the radars, it still reads on the language of the claim as it DOES identify the EM wave corresponding to the highest intensity. The examiner is advised to use more specific language to distinguish the claim from the prior art of record.
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 MARJAN - SABOKTAKIN whose telephone number is (303)297-4278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-5pm CT.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/MARJAN SABOKTAKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795