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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP 20204819.5, filed on October 30, 2020.
Status of Claims
Amendments to claims 1, 11 and 14 have been entered.
Claims 2, 6, 8, 12 and 15 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 3 – 5, 7, 9 – 11 and 13 – 15 are currently pending.
Response to Remarks
The 112 rejections and 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Bilstad teaches “The RF circuitry 1692 includes at least one of LAN RF circuitry, WAN RF circuitry, and cellular RF circuitry (Para. 105, emphasis added).” Originally filed claim 20 of Bilstad teaches “wherein the RF circuitry of the at least one anchor node comprises wireless wide area network (WAN) RF circuitry for transmitting WAN RF communications and wireless local area network (LAN) RF circuitry for transmitting LAN RF communications.” See Appl. 16/277,736 claims dated 2/15/2019 claim 20. As such, Bilstad suggests that RF circuitry could be designed for both WAN and LAN communications.
Kravets (US 20190170869 A1) provides similar teaching – “The communication network may include one or more of a local area network (“LAN”) and a wide area network (“WAN”), … (Para. 69).”
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.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 11 and 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being obvious over Beg (US 20200351692 A1) in view of Bilstad (US 10772067 B2).
As to claims 1, 11 and 14 – 15, Beg discloses a radio frequency system comprising multiple nodes (Para. 24) for performing radio frequency based sensing, wherein at least two of the multiple nodes are included in a dense node arrangement (Fig. 1), wherein the dense node arrangement comprises a multi-node device and/or a group of densely packed nodes (Fig. 1); and
the radio frequency system is configured: for forming a first group of nodes including at least one node of the dense node arrangement, wherein the radio frequency system is configured for forming the first group of nodes such that the first group includes the at least one node of the dense node arrangement (Beg Fig. 1),
for forming a second group of nodes including the at least one node of the first group and at least one additional node of the dense node arrangement, for performing radio frequency based sensing by the first group in a first sensing area for detecting a first sensing event indicating a presence of an object in the first sensing area (Fig. 1, e.g., 110A and 110C), and
wherein if the first sensing event is detected (contingent limitation – the method claim does not get patentable weight for this limitation unless the sensing event is claimed as occurring or have occurred.), the radio frequency system is further configured: for performing radio frequency based sensing by the second group in a second sensing area at least partially overlapping with the first sensing area for recognizing a second sensing event indicating an activity of the object (Para. 30 “In some implementations, the wireless sensing system can change a device from being connected to one mesh AP to being connected to another mesh AP.” And Para. 103 “In some implementations, the motion detection system selects which nodes are connected in the network (e.g., selecting which AP each leaf node is connected to in a multi-AP wireless network). For example, changing which nodes in a network are connected to each other can improve the physical (spatial) coverage of the wireless signals and thereby improve the spatial coverage of the motion detection system.” The modification of which nodes are in which group is the equivalent of changing from one group to another group.).
Beg does not teach the limitation least one node which is not included in the dense node arrangement.
In the same field of endeavor, Bilstad teaches “The RF circuitry 1692 includes at least one of LAN RF circuitry, WAN RF circuitry, and cellular RF circuitry (Para. 105, emphasis added).” Bilstad further teaches “wherein the RF circuitry of the at least one anchor node comprises wireless wide area network (WAN) RF circuitry for transmitting WAN RF communications and wireless local area network (LAN) RF circuitry for transmitting LAN RF communications (claim 20).” Note that originally filed claim 20 of Bilstad teaches “wherein the RF circuitry of the at least one anchor node comprises wireless wide area network (WAN) RF circuitry for transmitting WAN RF communications and wireless local area network (LAN) RF circuitry for transmitting LAN RF communications.” See Appl. 16/277,736 claims dated 2/15/2019 claim 20. As such, Bilstad suggested that RF circuitry could be designed for both WAN and LAN communications.
In view of the teachings of Bilstad, it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled before filing to include WAN to allow for larger coverage area thereby having more access to objects further away.
As to claim 5, Beg in view of Bilstad discloses the radio frequency system to claim 1 least one of the claims 1 to 4, wherein the radio frequency system is configured for adjusting a message frequency for transmitting radio frequency messages by the nodes of the radio frequency system for performing radio frequency based sensing, a directionality of radio frequency message transmissions, or both the message frequency for transmitting radio frequency messages by the nodes of the radio frequency system for performing radio frequency based sensing and the directionality of the radio frequency message transmissions, based on which sensing event is to be detected or recognized by the nodes (Para. 55 “changes to the steering or feedback properties used in the beamforming process indicate changes, which may be caused by moving objects, in the space accessed by the wireless communication system. For example, motion may be detected by substantial changes in the communication channel, e.g. as indicated by a channel response, or steering or feedback properties, or any combination thereof, over a period of time.”).
As to claim 9, Beg in view of Bilstad discloses a radio frequency system according to claim l at least one of the claims 1, wherein the radio frequency system is configured for performing an action based on the detected first sensing event, the detected third sensing event, the recognized second sensing event, and/or contextual information (Para. 104 “alarm”).
Claims 3 – 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Beg in view Bilstad and in further view of Saski (US 20060267533 A1).
Note: Claim 13 only requires one of its ten steps to be taught. The first step is the same subject matter as claim 3.
As to claims 3 and 13, Beg in view of Bilstad teaches in part the radio frequency system according to claim 1, wherein upon detecting the first sensing event, the radio frequency system is configured for performing radio frequency based sensing in a third sensing area by at least the at least one node of the first group for detecting a third sensing event indicating a location of the object within proximity of the dense node arrangement, the third sensing area at least partially overlapping with the first sensing area and the second sensing area, and wherein the radio frequency system; is configured for performing the radio frequency based sensing by the second group at the location of the object for recognizing the second sensing event if the first sensing event is detected and upon detecting the third sensing event.
Beg teaches different, but overlapping, detection areas, e.g., 110C, each said detection area having at least on different node, e.g., 102B, as shown in Fig. 1, wherein said nodes detect objects within proximity to said nodes which are densely grouped. Beg does not teach changing detection areas from one detection area to another based on a detection event.
In same field of endeavor, Sasaki teaches “When an object is detected moving in the first area toward the second area, the second area is enabled, and when an object is detected moving in the first area in a direction away from the second area, the second area is disabled (Para. 7).” Here, the taught detection, movement and direction meet the scope of three sensing events. Sasaki further suggest that radar techniques may be used at Para. 11.
In view of the teachings of Sasaki, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill before filing to change detection areas based on sensing events in order to converse energy by not always having each detection area illuminated via sensor nodes thereby reducing cost.
As to claim 4, Beg in view of Bilstad and Sasaki teaches the radio frequency system according to claim 3, wherein the radio frequency system is configured for forming the second group upon detecting the third sensing event and based on the location of the object (As modified in claim 3, same rationale/motivation applies.)
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Beg in view of Bilstad and in further view of Henderson (US 5670962 A)
As to claim 7, Beg in view of Bilstad does not teach the radio frequency system according to claims at least one of the claims 1, wherein the radio frequency system is configured for performing radio frequency based sensing by the second group in the second sensing area for recognizing the second sensing event until a stopping condition is fulfilled including one or more of that the second event is recognized, that a stopping event is detected, that a predetermined duration has passed since the second group started radio frequency based sensing in the second sensing area for recognizing the second sensing event, and that an inactivity of the object is recognized.
In the same field, Henderson teaches “determining that the vehicle is stationary for a prescribed period when the timed period reaches a set threshold.”
In view of Henderson, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before filing to use a duration threshold in order to determine whether is object has become stationary to ensure accuracy of said determination and therefore no reason to continuously track because said item is stationary.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Beg in view of Bilstad and in further view of Tsunoda (US 10664574 B1).
As to claim 10, Beg in view of Bilstad does not teach radio frequency super-system including two or more radio frequency systems according to claim 1at least one of the claim 1 such that the RF super-system includes two or more dense node arrangements at different locations.
In the same field, Tsunoda teaches “wherein said step of radar scanning each cell with at least two radars is accomplished with at least two radar-equipped unmanned air vehicles (claim 4).”
In view of Tsunoda, it would be obvious to have multiple cells in order to provide for more coverage thereby allowing for a target/object to be tracked further distances.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648