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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3-30-2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the applicant’s argument that Qiu fails to disclose the wake up triggers described in the claims, the examiner submits that Qiu teaches the movements, just not as a wake up trigger. Lemarchand further teaches a wake up trigger based on distance and heartbeat. Fig. 4B of Qiu shows a repetitive micro gesture of fingers as well as an approaching palm. Both of these are triggers recognized by Qiu, just not used for wake up. As noted in the Office Action, it is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine what already identified gestures could be used for a wake up trigger. Applicant has not provided any evidence or reasoning as to why a micro-gesture (or the other options in the claim) is new, improved or patentably distinct from the wake up triggers of either Qiu or Lemarchand.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0356178, published November 12, 202 in view of Lemarchand, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0302563, published September 30, 2021.
As per claims 1, 1, 8 and 15, Qiu discloses a method comprising:
during operation of a proximity-detection module of an electronic device: determining a distance, velocity, and angle of a target relative to the electronic device based on radar data obtained from a radar transceiver of the electronic device (Qiu, ¶95-97);
adjusting a configuration of the radar transceiver based on at least one of the distance, velocity, or angle of the target (Qiu, ¶73 where adjustments are made per burst and ¶105-107 where the changes help identify distance, velocity and angle);
and while at least one of the distance, velocity, or angle is greater than a respective threshold, repeating the determining and adjusting operations (Qiu, ¶124-127 where threshold is monitored and it is understood that the transmission doesn’t occur once then step);
in response to determining that each of the distance, velocity, and angle is less than its respective threshold, determining whether at least one wake-up trigger for gesture-based commands is detected (Qiu, ¶124-127);
and in response to determining that the at least one wake-up trigger for gesture-based commands is detected, triggering operation of a gesture-recognition module of the electronic device (Qiu, ¶137).
Qiu fails to expressly disclose a predetermine range of thresholds and proximity detection before triggering gesture recognition through a wake signal or using particular gestures as wake up.
Lemarchand teaches multiple predefined range thresholds and triggering a wake-up for more precision measurements (Fig. 3 and ¶75).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide proximity before gesture through multiple thresholds in order to gain the benefit of reducing overall power requirements as taught by Lemarchand (¶72).
Qiu discloses recognition of a repetitive micro-gesture performed by a user and a palm of the user facing the electronic device (Fig. 4B).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a repetitive micro-gesture for wake up, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Qiu and Lemarchand in allowing a certain motion to wake the apparatus.
As per claims 3, 10 and 17, Qiu as modified by Lemarchand further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the target comprises a finger or a hand of a user (Qiu, Fig. 4B).
As per claims 4, 11 and 18, Qiu as modified by Lemarchand further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein: the gesture-recognition module comprises multiple neural networks (Qiu, ¶41);
and the proximity-detection module consumes less power than the gesture-recognition module (Lemarchand, ¶72); and adjusting the configuration of the radar transceiver based on the predefined range of thresholds of at least one of the distance, velocity, or angle of the target comprises switching to a proximity-sensing mode based on a comparison of the at least one of the distance, velocity, or angle of the target to the predefined range of thresholds (Qiu, ¶105-107 adjusting configuration to improve detection and Lemarchand, ¶75).
As per claims 5, 12 and 19, Qiu as modified by Lemarchand further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein adjusting the configuration of the radar transceiver based on at least one of the distance, velocity, or angle of the target comprises: increasing or decreasing at least one of a radar bandwidth, a number of pulses per frame, a number of frames per second, a number of active analog-to-digital converters (ADCs), or an ADC sampling rate when the distance of the target from the electronic device becomes less than each of multiple distance thresholds as the target moves toward the electronic device (Qiu, ¶73 and Lemarchand, ¶75 and Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the pulse limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As per claims 6, 13 and 20, Qiu as modified by Lemarchand further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein determining the distance, velocity, and angle of the target relative to the electronic device comprises: using a range-Doppler map by the proximity-detection module to estimate the distance and the velocity of the target, and using a range-azimuth map by the proximity-detection module to estimate the angle of the target (Qiu, ¶79).
As per claims 7 and 14, Qiu as modified by Lemarchand further discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: in response to determining that the distance of the target is less than a distance threshold, determining whether an application configured for a wake-up trigger is currently running on the electronic device (Qiu, ¶136 and Lemarchand, ¶75).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
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 MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights