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 Remarks and Arguments
Examiner would like to acknowledge the productive and helpful interview held with Attorney Thayne and Primary Examiner Justice on 02/05/2026. Applicant’s arguments filed 02/10/2026, with respect to the 102 rejection of claims 1-20, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Weitnauer (US 20140378809 A1) and Hazra et al. (US 20230393259 A1). The 101 rejection of claims 1-15 remains with new analysis, detailed in this Office Action.
Double Patenting
Examiner maintains the provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection as set forth in the previous Office Actions dated 11/10/2025 and 05/05/2025.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more to the abstract idea itself.
101 Analysis: Step 1
Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test entails considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Independent claims 1 and 9 are both directed towards a method. Therefore, each of the independent claims 1 and 9 and the corresponding dependent claims 2-8 and 10-15 are directed to a statutory category of invention under Step 1.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 1
If the claim recites a statutory category of invention, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A. Step 2A of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong 1, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception.
Regarding Prong 1, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below):
A method for detection of an occupant vital sign from within a cabin of a vehicle using RADAR, the method comprising the steps of:
identifying a repeating pattern of Doppler spectrum peaks in RADAR signal over a plurality of different range bins;
identifying an estimated frequency distance between adjacent peaks of the repeating pattern; and
calculating an estimated rate of a repeating vital sign of an occupant within the cabin of the vehicle using the estimated frequency distance.
Independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below):
A method for detection of an occupant vital sign from within a cabin of a vehicle, the method comprising the steps of:
transmitting one or more electromagnetic signals within a cabin of a vehicle;
processing signals associated with the one or more electromagnetic signals;
identifying a signal repetition frequency from the signals associated with the one or more electromagnetic signals, wherein the signal repetition frequency is indicative of a vital sign of an occupant within the cabin of the vehicle, and wherein the signal repetition frequency comprises an estimated frequency distance between adjacent peaks in a repeating pattern of Doppler spectrum peaks; and
estimating a vital sign of the occupant using the signal repetition frequency.
These limitations, as drafted, are a system that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as a mental process or a mathematical calculation. That is, nothing in the claim elements preclude the steps from practically being performed as a mathematical calculation or a mental process. For example, in claim 1, “identifying an estimated frequency distance between adjacent peaks of the repeating pattern” may be performed in a human mind as a mental determination made according to observable data, such as a human looking at a display of RADAR data. For example, a computer could compute and display Doppler spectrum peaks, and a human could look at the displayed data and estimate frequency distance between peaks. Also in claim 1, both “identifying a repeating pattern of Doppler spectrum peaks in RADAR signal over a plurality of different range bins” and “calculating an estimated rate of a repeating vital sign of an occupant within the cabin of the vehicle using the estimated frequency distance” may be interpreted as a mathematical calculation based on gathered data. For example, mathematical concepts used in signal processing analysis may be applied to Doppler data to identify a repeating pattern of peaks. Regarding claim 9, both “identifying a signal repetition frequency from the signals associated with the one or more electromagnetic signals” and “estimating a vital sign of the occupant using the signal repetition frequency” may be performed in a human mind as a mental determination made according to observable data, such as a human looking at a display of RADAR data. Thus, the independent claims recite abstract ideas.
101 Analysis: Step 2A, Prong 2
If the claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim requires further analysis in Step 2A, Prong 2. In Step 2A, Prong 2, examiners evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
Regarding Prong 2, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in MPEP § 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application”.
In claim 1, the additional elements beyond the above-noted idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for detection of an occupant vital sign from within a cabin of a vehicle using RADAR, the method comprising the steps of:
identifying a repeating pattern of Doppler spectrum peaks in RADAR signal over a plurality of different range bins;
identifying an estimated frequency distance between adjacent peaks of the repeating pattern; and
calculating an estimated rate of a repeating vital sign of an occupant within the cabin of the vehicle using the estimated frequency distance.
In claim 9, the additional elements beyond the above-noted idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional elements” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A method for detection of an occupant vital sign from within a cabin of a vehicle, the method comprising the steps of:
transmitting one or more electromagnetic signals within a cabin of a vehicle;
processing signals associated with the one or more electromagnetic signals;
identifying a signal repetition frequency from the signals associated with the one or more electromagnetic signals, wherein the signal repetition frequency is indicative of a vital sign of an occupant within the cabin of the vehicle, and wherein the signal repetition frequency comprises an estimated frequency distance between adjacent peaks in a repeating pattern of Doppler spectrum peaks; and
estimating a vital sign of the occupant using the signal repetition frequency.
For the following reasons, the examiner submits that the above identified additional elements do not integrate the above-noted abstract ideas into a practical application.
Regarding the additional elements of claim 1 and claim 9, “A method for detection of an occupant vital sign from within a cabin of a vehicle using RADAR, the method comprising the steps of” amount to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, using machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. The application in the environment of a cabin of a vehicle to detect vital sign of an occupant is a particular technologic environment and field of use. The preamble of the claims is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02
Regarding more additional elements of claim 9, both “transmitting one or more electromagnetic signals within a cabin of a vehicle” and “processing signals associated with the one or more electromagnetic signals” are generic data gathering processes. As transmitting signals within a cabin of a vehicle is a generic form of data gathering in a particular environment (in this case, a vehicle), the limitations of the claims do not point towards integration of a judicial exception or practical application. In this case, transmitting signals in a cabin of a vehicle, alone and in combination with the claim’s abstract ideas, does not amount to eligible patent subject matter.
Regarding the final additional element of claim 9, “wherein the signal repetition frequency is indicative of a vital sign of an occupant within the cabin of the vehicle, and wherein the signal repetition frequency comprises an estimated frequency distance between adjacent peaks in a repeating pattern of Doppler spectrum peaks” describes the gathered data from signals. Data indicative of a vital sign can be a variety of data, such heart rate, respiration rate from chest movement, or blood pressure. This element is generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, “an estimated frequency distance between adjacent peaks in a repeating pattern of Doppler spectrum peaks” can be determined in a human mind, as explained above in section 11, making this element a mental process, so the “signal repetition frequency” is comprised of an element that can be determined in the human mind.
Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis: Step 2B
If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application in step 2A Prong 2, then the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, and requires further analysis under Step 2B to determine whether it provides an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).
Regarding claim 1 and claim 9 as discussed above, the additional element of “A method for detection of an occupant vital sign from within a cabin of a vehicle” amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using machinery in its ordinary capacity cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2). The application of the method to the environment of a cabin of a vehicle to detect vital sign of an occupant is a particular technologic environment and field of use, which is also insufficient to qualify as an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h), additional elements limiting the use of the abstract idea fail to add an inventive concept to the claims when the type of limitation merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Regarding claim 9 as discussed above, both “transmitting one or more electromagnetic signals within a cabin of a vehicle” and “processing signals associated with the one or more electromagnetic signals” are generic data gathering processes, which do not amount to an inventive concept by themselves or in combination with judicial exceptions because they are tools used to perform an existing process. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
Further regarding claim 9 as discussed above, “wherein the signal repetition frequency is indicative of a vital sign of an occupant within the cabin of the vehicle, and wherein the signal repetition frequency comprises an estimated frequency distance between adjacent peaks in a repeating pattern of Doppler spectrum peaks” describes the gathered data from signals and an element of that data that can be determined in the human mind. The description of the data being indicative of a vital sign is linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, which is insufficient to amount to an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Thus, even when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 2-3 provide further limitations on the estimated repeating vital sign obtained in claim 1. Calculating a breathing rate or a heart rate are also abstract ideas that can be performed by a human analyzing observable data. With a pen and paper, as well as with mere finger pulse touch, a human could estimate a breathing rate or heart rate of an occupant by keeping track of the timing of heart beats or chest movements. As mentioned in section 24, calculating an estimated rate of a repeating vital sign using estimated frequency distance is a mathematical concept, that could also be completed with pen and paper or by observing displayed data. Substituting “breathing rate” or “heart rate” for “repeating vital sign” does not change the abstract idea nature of the limitation. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 4-5 merely narrow the previously-recited abstract idea limitations (i.e., further characterization of how the RADAR data repeating pattern is identified). The steps of “selecting a strongest repeating signal from among a plurality of RADAR signals”, “selecting at least one range bin adjacent to a range bin associated with the strongest signal”, and “identifying an estimated frequency distance between adjacent peaks of a repeating pattern from a RADAR signal in the at least one range bin adjacent to the range bin associated with the strongest signal” can all be accomplished in the human mind by observing displayed RADAR data or by mathematical concepts for signal analysis. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claim 6-7 provide further limitations on the estimated frequency distance obtained in claim 5. The step of “using the estimated frequency distance…to improve accuracy of at least one estimated parameter derived from the repeating RADAR signal” and the “estimated parameter” comprising “a location of the occupant within the vehicle” amount merely to instructions to apply the abstract idea using machinery in its ordinary capacity in a particular environment/scenario (using RADAR data to detect a location of an occupant in a vehicle). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claim 8 provide an additional classifying step to the method of claim 1 using the estimated repeated vital sign obtained in claim 1. The limitation of claim 8, “classifying the occupant using the estimated repeating vital sign”, can be done by a human. For example, with a chart showing typical vital sign ranges for men, women, children, and animals, a human could compare the measured vital sign with the reference chart and classify the vital sign mentally or with a pen and paper. This limitation amounts to instructions to apply the abstract idea, with these instructions further comprising a mental process. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 1, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claims 10-11 amount merely to instructions to apply the abstract idea using machinery in its ordinary capacity. Regarding claim 10, “the signals associated with the one or more electromagnetic signals comprise reflected signals” and “the step of processing reflected signals comprises processing reflected signals from the one or more electromagnetic signals in a plurality of range bins” are merely instructions to use RADAR signal processing machinery in its ordinary capacity. Regarding claim 11, “the step of processing reflected signals comprises processing reflected signals from the one or more electromagnetic signals in a first range bin corresponding with a target range bin and a second range bin adjacent to the target range bin” is also instructions to use RADAR signal processing machinery in its ordinary capacity. Mere instructions (in this case, instructions for data gathering/processing) to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). For the reasons described above with respect to claim 9, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claim 12 recite a mental process that could be done in the human mind. For example, “identifying the target range bin by comparing signal strengths of the reflected signals” could be accomplished by a human observing displayed RADAR data. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1 and 9, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
The various metrics/limitations of claim 13-14 amount merely to instructions to apply the abstract idea using machinery in its ordinary capacity. The limitations of “the one or more electromagnetic signals comprise RADAR signals” and “transmitting one or more electromagnetic signals within a cabin of a vehicle to an intended direction corresponding with an anticipated location of an occupant” are instructions to use RADAR machinery in its ordinary capacity. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 9, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding the various metrics/limitations of claim 15, please refer to section 17 regarding claim 2 about estimating a vital sign (breathing rate). For the reasons described above with respect to claims 1 and 9, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Examiner suggestions to overcome 101 rejections
Examiner would like point to Fig. 7, step 730 and paragraph 0071 of the specification as potential subject that matter that could overcome the 101 rejections if added to the independent claims 1 and 15.
Regarding Fig. 7, adding a method step of performing an action based on the estimated vital sign would provide a practical application for the mental and mathematical abstract ideas presented in claim 1. Regarding paragraph 0071 of the specification, “Some vehicles/systems/methods may then be configured to take automated actions based upon vehicle occupant classifications and/or re-classifications at 730. For example, some vehicles may be configured to automatically disable airbags associated with a seat in which an occupant has been classified as a child/infant and/or in which no occupant vital sign can be detected.”, adding a method step of a vehicle taking an automated action (e.g. turning an airbag off for an infant) would also provide a practical application of the abstract ideas as well as an improvement to the technology (i.e. increasing vehicle safety, reducing unnecessary airbag usage).
Examiner would not suggest adding generic radar hardware structure (e.g. a radar sensor) in an attempt to overcome the 101 rejections because of previously cited 101 sections (see the case law in section 21 of this Office Action). Examiner would suggest adding a method step of an action (for example, “taking at least one automated action based upon the estimated rate of a repeating vital sign”) rather than generic hardware structure.
Examiner would like to remind Applicant that as made clear by the courts, the ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.").
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 1-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weitnauer (US 20140378809 A1) in view of Hazra et al. (US 20230393259 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Weitnauer discloses [Note: what Weitnauer fails to disclose is strike-through]
A method for detection of an occupant vital sign (see Abstract, “Methods, systems and computer program products are provided estimating a physiological characteristic of a subject based on a reflected signal received by a UWB radar system”), the method comprising the steps of:
identifying a repeating pattern of Doppler spectrum peaks in RADAR signal over a plurality of (see Fig. 2, discern harmonics elements 118; pg. 6, paragraph 0049, “block 118 may involve an additional or alternative evaluation process of comparing peak-to-peak distances (in the frequency or bin domain) between pairs of peaks”; Fig. 4, spectrum with peaks);
identifying an estimated frequency distance between adjacent peaks of the repeating pattern (see pg. 6, paragraph 0054, “the harmonic test may involve: evaluating the average peak-to-peak separation f of the peaks in the path (in the frequency or bin domain);”); and
calculating an estimated rate of a repeating vital sign of an occupant (see Fig. 7A, step 124 of estimating physiological characteristic after computing peak to peak distance).
Hazra discloses
detection of an occupant vital sign from within a cabin of a vehicle (see pg. 2, paragraph 0029, “Some embodiments may be used for monitoring a driver of a car.”)
identifying a repeating pattern… over a plurality of different range bins (see pg. 3, paragraph 0045, “In some embodiments, range data, such as a range image, such as a range-Doppler image (RDI) or a range-angle image (RAI) is generated during step 206”; pg. 3, paragraph 0046, “ During step 208, detection of potential targets is performed…For example, in some embodiments, potential targets are identified by comparing power levels of the range image with a threshold, where points above the threshold are labeled as targets while points below the threshold are labeled as non-targets. In some embodiments, the range of interest associated with the detected target (the target distance or target bin) is identified based on the location of peaks of the range image having power levels above the threshold.”; pgs. 3-4, paragraph 0048, “ In some embodiments, target range bins are clustered to “fuse” the target point cloud belonging to one target to a single target and thus determine the mean range of such single target…In some embodiments, the clustered targets are used to identify the range of interest associated with the detected target (the target distance or target bin).”)
calculating an estimated rate of a repeating vital sign of an occupant within the cabin of the vehicle (see pg. 5, paragraphs 0072 and 0073, example of vital sign estimate settings such as “a human target driving a car at a distance…from the millimeter-wave radar sensor 102 (which may be located, e.g., in a steering wheel or dashboard of a car)”)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hazra into the invention of Weitnauer. Both Weitnauer and Hazra are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose vital sign monitoring with radar signals. Weitnauer discloses identifying a repeating pattern of radar peaks over a plurality of discrete Fourier transform (DFT) bins, identifying an estimated frequency distance between peaks, and calculating a rate of a vital sign using the frequency distance; however, Weitnauer fails to disclose identifying a pattern over range bins and the application of the vital sign detection radar within the cabin of a vehicle. These features are disclosed by Hazra where the vital sign detection can be applied to a driver of a vehicle, and range bins and target bins can be derived from range-Doppler data where potential targets are identified within those bins when the targets surpass a threshold. The combination of Weitnauer and Hazra would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to analyze data with existing radar signal analysis techniques, reducing the manufacturing cost of having to create new software or hardware to accommodate the detection process. The combination would also be obvious to apply to in-vehicle vital sign detection of an occupant as a practical application of health monitoring in a frequently occupied space, such as a car.
Regarding claim 2, Weitnauer further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the estimated repeating vital sign comprises a breathing rate (see pg. 2, paragraph 0021, “In some embodiments, the physiological characteristic comprises a respiration rate of a human”).
Regarding claim 3, Weitnauer further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the estimated repeating vital sign comprises a heart rate (see pg. 2, paragraph 0021, “In some embodiments, the physiological characteristic comprises a heart rate of a human”).
Regarding claim 4, Weitnauer further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the step of identifying a repeating pattern of Doppler spectrum peaks comprises selecting a strongest repeating signal from among a plurality of RADAR signals (see pg. 5, paragraph 0045, “Accordingly, in some embodiments, block 118 comprises discerning ascertaining local maxima (peaks) in frequency domain data 116. In some embodiments, such peak detection may comprise application of a suitable power threshold to select peaks of interest (i.e. peaks which may be considered to be candidates for the heart rate harmonic set may be discerned to have local maxima that are greater than the power threshold).”).
Regarding claim 5, Weitnauer further discloses [Note: what Weitnauer fails to disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 4, further comprising:
identifying an estimated frequency distance between adjacent peaks of a repeating pattern from a RADAR signal in the at least one range bin adjacent to the range bin associated with the strongest signal (see Fig. 4; pg. 6, paragraph 0049, example of adjacent bin peak-to-peak analysis).
Hazra discloses
selecting at least one range bin adjacent to a range bin associated with the strongest signal (see pgs. 3-4, paragraph 0048, “ In some embodiments, target range bins are clustered to “fuse” the target point cloud belonging to one target to a single target and thus determine the mean range of such single target…In some embodiments, the clustered targets are used to identify the range of interest associated with the detected target (the target distance or target bin).”; and
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hazra into the invention of Weitnauer. Weitnauer discloses identifying an estimated frequency distance between peaks in DFT bins adjacent to a bin with the strongest signal; however, Weitnauer fails to disclose signal identifying over range bins. This feature is disclosed by Hazra where multiple range bins can be combined to help identify a range of interest. The combination of Weitnauer and Hazra would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to analyze data with existing radar signal analysis techniques in the range domain instead of a DFT bin domain, providing an alternative way of displaying and analyzing the radar data.
Regarding claim 6, Hazra further discloses
The method of claim 5, further comprising using the estimated frequency distance between adjacent peaks of a repeating RADAR signal in the at least one range bin adjacent to the range bin associated with the strongest signal to improve accuracy of at least one estimated parameter derived from the repeating RADAR signal (see pg. 3, paragraph 0046, “During step 208, detection of potential targets is performed. … In some embodiments, the range of interest associated with the detected target (the target distance or target bin) is identified based on the location of peaks of the range image having power levels above the threshold.”; pgs. 3-4, paragraph 0048, “In some embodiments, target range bins are clustered to “fuse” the target point cloud belonging to one target to a single target …In some embodiments, the clustered targets are used to identify the range of interest associated with the detected target (the target distance or target bin).”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hazra into the invention of Weitnauer. Weitnauer fails to disclose using bin peak measurements to improve the accuracy of a parameter such as location of an occupant. This feature is disclosed by Hazra where an area of interest for target distance can be determined using peaks and multiple range bins. The combination of Weitnauer and Hazra would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to narrow the area of interest to reduce the load of signal analysis, and to make sure the radar signals are being sent to and from the appropriate target.
Regarding claim 7, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 6 are applied.
Regarding claim 8, Hazra further discloses
The method of claim 1, further comprising classifying the occupant using the estimated repeating vital sign (see pg. 10, paragraph 0131, “During step 1504, a DNN is used to classify the RDIs into 3 possible classes: 0 humans (1506), 1 human (1508), and more than 1 human (1510).”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Hazra into the invention of Weitnauer. Weitnauer fails to disclose classifying an occupant using the estimated repeating vital sign. This feature is disclosed by Hazra a DNN (deep neural network) can classify the occupants based on an RDI (range-Doppler image). The combination of Weitnauer and Hazra would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to identify how many people are within the range of the radar device, and execute the vital sign detection process accordingly, potentially saving energy by not executing the method when no occupants are detected.
Regarding claim 9, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 1 are applied. Weitnauer further discloses
transmitting one or more electromagnetic signals within a cabin of a vehicle (see pg. 2, paragraph 0024, “UWB radar system 30 generates UWB pulses (or impulses) that are transmitted by antenna system 31 into a space where the subject may be located”);
processing signals associated with the one or more electromagnetic signals (see pg. 2, paragraph 0024, “If a person is present in the sensing volume, then the pulses transmitted by UWB transmitter 30A are reflected at interfaces within the person's body (e.g. the surfaces of the lungs and heart) and the corresponding reflected pulses may be received at antenna 31 and detected by UWB receiver 30B”; Fig. 1A, signal processing 33 coupled to UWB radar and receiver 30B);
Regarding claim 10, Weitnauer further discloses
The method of claim 9, wherein the signals associated with the one or more electromagnetic signals comprise reflected signals (see pg. 2, paragraph 0024, “If a person is present in the sensing volume, then the pulses transmitted by UWB transmitter 30A are reflected at interfaces within the person's body (e.g. the surfaces of the lungs and heart) and the corresponding reflected pulses may be received at antenna 31 and detected by UWB receiver 30B”), and wherein the step of processing reflected signals comprises processing reflected signals from the one or more electromagnetic signals in a plurality of range bins (see Fig. 4; pg. 5, paragraph 0042, description example of data signal processing in bins).
Regarding claim 11, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 5 are applied.
Regarding claim 12, Weitnauer further discloses
The method of claim 11, further comprising identifying the target range bin by comparing signal strengths of the reflected signals (see pg. 5, paragraph 0045, “Accordingly, in some embodiments, block 118 comprises discerning ascertaining local maxima (peaks) in frequency domain data 116. In some embodiments, such peak detection may comprise application of a suitable power threshold to select peaks of interest (i.e. peaks which may be considered to be candidates for the heart rate harmonic set may be discerned to have local maxima that are greater than the power threshold).”).
Regarding claim 13, Weitnauer further discloses
The method of claim 9, wherein the one or more electromagnetic signals comprise RADAR signals (see pg. 2, paragraph 0024, “UWB radar system 30 generates UWB pulses (or impulses) that are transmitted by antenna system 31”).
Regarding claim 14, Weitnauer further discloses
The method of claim 9, further comprising transmitting one or more electromagnetic signals within a cabin of a vehicle to an intended direction corresponding with an anticipated location of an occupant (see pg. 2, paragraph 0024, “UWB radar system 30 generates UWB pulses (or impulses) that are transmitted by antenna system 31 into a space where the subject may be located”).
Regarding claim 15, the same cited section as claim 2 applies.
Regarding claim 16, the same cited sections and rationale from claim 1 and claim 9 are applied.
Regarding claim 17, Weitnauer further discloses
The system of claim 16, wherein the electromagnetic sensor comprises a RADAR sensor (see Fig. 1A, UWB radar 30).
Regarding claim 19, the same cited section as claim 2 applies.
Regarding claim 20, the same cited section as claim 14 applies.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weitnauer (US 20140378809 A1) in view of Hazra et al. (US 20230393259 A1) and further in view of Zeng (US 20240069185 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Zeng discloses
The system of claim 16, further comprising a classification module configured to receive information from the vital sign module and classify the occupant according to an age group using the rate associated with the vital sign of the occupant (see Fig. 13, vital signs features element 1312 and classifier element 1318; Pg. 5, paragraph 0043, “the system 100, via the classifier, is operable to generate (i) an adult label when the radar subject is classified as being an adult (ii) a child label when the radar subject is classified as being a child, and (iii) a baby label when the radar subject is classified as being a baby.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Zeng into the invention of Weitnauer and Hazra. Weitnauer, Hazra, and Zeng are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose vital sign monitoring with radar signals. Weitnauer and Hazra disclose the limitations of claim 16; however, Weitnauer and Hazra fail to disclose a classification module that can classify an occupant to an age group based on the received vital sign rate. This feature is disclosed by Zeng where the vital sign elements can be used to classify an occupant to an age group. The combination of Weitnauer, Hazra, and Zeng would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to identify if an occupant has a vital sign rate outside of the normal range for their age group, allowing monitoring of a health or medical issue.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Lorato (US20190008459A1); A method for detecting a vital sign of a subject (102) comprises: receiving (302) a reflected radio frequency signal from the subject (102), the reflected signal being based on a transmitted signal, which is Doppler-shifted due to mechanical movements corresponding to the heart rate and/or the respiratory rate; dividing (304) a baseband signal into a sequence of sliding windows (200), each sliding window (200) representing a time interval; estimating (306) a vital sign parameter in at least one sliding window (200); determining (308) whether a vital sign parameter may be reliably estimated in at least one sliding window (200); on condition that the vital sign parameter may not be reliably estimated in a sliding window (200), determining (310) a vital sign parameter of the sliding window (200) based on vital sign parameters estimated in a plurality of windows representing time intervals close to the time interval of the window (200).; see paragraphs 0036-0037 regarding vital sign detection in the frequency domain
Bliss et al. (US20220142478A1); A precise cardiac data reconstruction method is provided, which may also be referred to herein as radar cardiography (RCG). RCG can reconstruct cardiac data, such as heart rate and/or electrocardiogram (ECG)-like heartbeat waveform signals wirelessly by using advanced radar signal processing techniques. For example, heartbeat and related characteristics can be monitored by isolating cardiovascular activity from strong respiratory interference in spatial spaces: azimuth and elevation. This results in significant improvements to pulse signal-to-noise-ratio (SNR) compared to conventional approaches, facilitating heart-rate variability (HRV) analysis.; see range-Doppler spectrum in Fig. 11
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA A EDRADA whose telephone number is (571)272-4859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm EST.
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, William Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/ISABELLA A EDRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648