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 .
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 24-26, 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim(s) 24, the claim(s) recite “determining the first frequency shift of the first reflection based upon a difference between a first frequency of the first reflection received by the first wireless sensor and magnitude of a frequency of the first wireless signal transmitted by the wireless access point”. This syntax is repeated for three frequency shifts by three wireless sensors. The Examiner has been unable to identify the corresponding description in the disclosure. At best, para. 0077 discusses three sensors and ‘a magnitude of the frequency (such as frequency shift information indicating a signature of user motion)’; however, there is no indication of a frequency difference. Therefore, in view of the above, the Examiner concludes that the said limitation is not fully supported by the original disclosure.
Regarding claim(s) 25 the claim(s) recite “wherein determining the first type of the motion of the person further includes: i) comparing a combination of the first frequency shift, the second frequency shift, and the third frequency shift, to multiple different types of frequency shift signatures, each of the multiple different types of frequency shift signatures corresponding to a different type of motion; and ii) matching the combination to a first type of frequency shift signature of the multiple different types of frequency shift signatures, the first type of frequency shift signature being mapped to the first type of motion”. The Examiner has been unable to identify the corresponding description in the disclosure. At best, para. 0027 discusses ‘Still further, the wireless signals can be configured to include a first wireless signal transmitted from the wireless access point. Monitoring of the motion of the person may include: i) receiving a first reflection of the first wireless signal off the person, and ii) mapping a signature (such as frequency shifts) associated with the reflection of the first wireless signal to an action type to determine the type of motion associated with the person.’; however, there is no indication of the exact claimed sequence. Therefore, in view of the above, the Examiner concludes that the said limitation is not fully supported by the original disclosure.
Regarding claim(s) 26 the claim(s) recite “matching a combination of the first frequency shift, the second frequency shift, and the third frequency shift, to a frequency shift signature corresponding to the determined type of the motion of the person”. The Examiner has been unable to identify the corresponding description in the disclosure. There is no indication of the exact claimed sequence. Therefore, in view of the above, the Examiner concludes that the said limitation is not fully supported by the original disclosure.
Regarding claim(s) 28 the claim(s) recite “wherein the frequency shift signature associated with the determined type of motion includes multiple different magnitudes of frequency shifts, each of which occurs at different times”. The Examiner has been unable to identify the corresponding description in the disclosure. At best, para. 0098 discusses ‘Referring again to FIG. 3, the analyzer entity 141 can be configured to determine a location of the user at different times based on time of flight algorithms. For example, it is known at what time the wireless signal M1-X is transmitted in the region 121.’; however, there is no indication of the ‘different magnitudes of frequency shifts’. Therefore, in view of the above, the Examiner concludes that the said limitation is not fully supported by the original disclosure.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8, 10-12, 16, 21-24, 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toner et al. (US- 20230171326 hereinafter Toner) in view of Yao et al. (US 20250240106 hereinafter Yao).
Regarding claim 1, Toner teaches A method comprising: transmitting wireless signals from a wireless access point in a network environment (0038 “In some cases, one or more of the wireless communication devices 102 is a Wi-Fi access point or another type of wireless access point (WAP).”; fig 1),
the wireless access point providing a mobile communication device wireless access (0038 “In some instances, one or more of the wireless communication devices 102 can be implemented as WAPs in a mesh network, while the other wireless communication device(s) 102 are implemented as edge devices (e.g., mobile devices”) to a remote network (0028 “The channel information for each of the communication links may be analyzed by one or more motion detection algorithms (e.g., running on a hub device, a client device, or other device in the wireless communication network, or on a remote device”);
via the wireless signals transmitted from the wireless access point (fig 1),
detecting presence of a person in a network environment (fig 1; 0041 “For example, the object can be a human (e.g., the person 106 shown in FIG. 1”); the wireless signals including a first wireless signal (0047 “In the example shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B, the first wireless communication device 204A transmits wireless motion probe signals repeatedly (e.g., periodically, intermittently, at scheduled, unscheduled, or random intervals, etc.).”); and
monitoring motion of the person based on reflections of the wireless signals off the person in the network environment (0050 “the wireless signal is transmitted from the first wireless communication device 204A and reflected off the object at the second position 214B toward the third wireless communication device 204C.”),
Toner does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Yao teaches the monitoring including determining a type of the motion of the person based at least in part on a first frequency shift of a first reflection of the first wireless signal off of the person in the network environment (Yao Abstract “The Doppler frequency shift information is Doppler frequency shift information associated with motion of a sensing target in a channel.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the system and method of Yao with the teachings of Toner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system efficiency (Yao 0067). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Yao merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular motion features. Since both Toner and Yao disclose similar motion sensing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teaches The method as in claim 1, wherein monitoring the motion of the person includes: determining a location of the person in the network environment based on reception of the reflections of the wireless signals off the person, the reflections including the first reflection of the first wireless signal off the person, the reflections received at multiple different wireless sensors in the network environment (Toner 0025 “In some aspects of what is described here, motion information can be generated once and distributed to various information consumers rather than the duplicative effort of each consumer having to generate their own motion information. Additionally, motion information can be partitioned as allowing it to be processed on different equipment tiers possessing different amounts of computing power. For example, motion information can be processed in the cloud on powerful server farms rather than being restricted to low-power on-premises devices.”).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teaches The method as in claim 1, wherein the wireless signals include a first wireless signal transmitted from the wireless access point (Toner fig 1); and wherein monitoring the motion of the person includes: mapping a signature of the first reflection of the first wireless signal to an action of the person (Toner 0111 “In some examples, a motion pattern detection function may record a motion pathway as a curve that represents the motion of a person first thing in the morning after a period of sleep. The curve may indicate that the person moves between, for example, a bedroom and kitchen as the first activity of the morning. In an example, a statistical range includes a spatial range corresponding to the physical dimensions of the halls and doorways. A temporal range may define a period, e.g., between 9 am and 9:30 am each day, during which the spatial component of this signature is expected to occur.”).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teaches The method as in claim 1, wherein monitoring the motion of the person includes:
i) at a first wireless signal sensor, receiving a first reflection of the first wireless signal off the person (Toner fig 1)
ii) at a second wireless signal sensor disparately located with respect to the first wireless senor (Toner fig 1), receiving a second reflection of the first wireless signal off the person (0108 “The high-resolution motion data may include channel state information derived from wireless signals transmitted through a space between multiple wireless communication devices.”), and
iii) mapping a combination of a first signature of the first reflection of the first wireless signal and a second signature of the second reflection of the wireless signal to a specific type of action action of the person (Toner 0025 “Furthermore, the motion information can be condensed into motion signatures that allow complex combinations of spatial and time information to be more easily used within a motion environment and more efficiently transferred between equipment tiers”).
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art teaches The method as in claim 1, wherein transmitting wireless signals from the wireless access point includes: transmitting a first wireless signal from the wireless access point to the mobile a communication device, the mobile communication device operated by the person (Toner 0069 “In some implementations, the user device is the client device 232 used to detect motion”); and wherein the transmitted first wireless signal includes data targeted for delivery to the communication device (Toner 0029 “In some instances, a motion detection system returns motion data, and the motion data can be processed, for example, to perform motion encoding or to provide motion context alerts and notifications”).
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art teaches The method as in claim 9 further comprising: based on the monitored motion and the determined type of the motion of the person, communicating a message to the mobile communication device (Toner fig 3).
Regarding claim 11 claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 12 claim 12 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 16 claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6.
Regarding claim 21 claim 21 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, the cited prior art teaches The method as in claim 1, wherein monitoring the motion of the person includes:
receiving the first reflection of the first wireless signal off of the person at a first wireless sensor in the network environment (Toner fig 1; 0041 “For example, the object can be a human (e.g., the person 106 shown in FIG. 1”);
receiving a second reflection of the first wireless signal off of the person at a second wireless sensor in the network environment (Yao Abstract “The first information is Doppler frequency shift information obtained by a third device by measuring a first signal sent by a second device. The second information is Doppler frequency shift information obtained by the second device by measuring a second signal sent by the third device.”); and
receiving a third reflection of the first wireless signal off of the person at a third wireless sensor in the network environment (Yao Abstract “The first information is Doppler frequency shift information obtained by a third device by measuring a first signal sent by a second device. The second information is Doppler frequency shift information obtained by the second device by measuring a second signal sent by the third device. The target information is used for indicating Doppler frequency shift information between the second device and the third device. The Doppler frequency shift information is Doppler frequency shift information associated with motion of a sensing target in a channel.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the system and method of Yao with the teachings of Toner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system efficiency (Yao 0067). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Yao merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular motion features. Since both Toner and Yao disclose similar motion sensing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 23, the cited prior art teaches The method as in claim 22 further comprising:
determining a location of the person in the network environment based on timing of (Toner 0021 “For instance, the wireless sensing system may operate as a motion detection system to detect the existence and location of motion based on Wi-Fi signals or other types of wireless signals.”): i) receiving the first reflection at the first wireless sensor (Toner 0025 “Furthermore, the motion information can be condensed into motion signatures that allow complex combinations of spatial and time information to be more easily used within a motion environment and more efficiently transferred between equipment tiers.”), ii) receiving the second reflection at the second wireless sensor, and iii) receiving the third reflection at the third wireless sensor (Yao Abstract “The first information is Doppler frequency shift information obtained by a third device by measuring a first signal sent by a second device. The second information is Doppler frequency shift information obtained by the second device by measuring a second signal sent by the third device. The target information is used for indicating Doppler frequency shift information between the second device and the third device. The Doppler frequency shift information is Doppler frequency shift information associated with motion of a sensing target in a channel.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the system and method of Yao with the teachings of Toner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system efficiency (Yao 0067). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Yao merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular motion features. Since both Toner and Yao disclose similar motion sensing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 24, the cited prior art teaches The method as in claim 23, wherein monitoring motion of the person further includes:
determining the first frequency shift of the first reflection based upon a difference between a first frequency of the first reflection received by the first wireless sensor and magnitude of a frequency of the first wireless signal (Yao Abstract “The first device obtains target information based on the first information and the second information. The first information is Doppler frequency shift information obtained by a third device by measuring a first signal sent by a second device. The second information is Doppler frequency shift information obtained by the second device by measuring a second signal sent by the third device. The target information is used for indicating Doppler frequency shift information between the second device and the third device. The Doppler frequency shift information is Doppler frequency shift information associated with motion of a sensing target in a channel.”) transmitted by the wireless access point (Toner 0038 “In some cases, one or more of the wireless communication devices 102 is a Wi-Fi access point or another type of wireless access point (WAP)”) transmitted by the wireless access point (Toner 0038 “In some cases, one or more of the wireless communication devices 102 is a Wi-Fi access point or another type of wireless access point (WAP)”);
determining a second frequency shift of the second reflection based upon a difference between a second frequency of the second reflection received by the second wireless sensor and the magnitude of the frequency of the first wireless signal (Yao Abstract “The first device obtains target information based on the first information and the second information. The first information is Doppler frequency shift information obtained by a third device by measuring a first signal sent by a second device. The second information is Doppler frequency shift information obtained by the second device by measuring a second signal sent by the third device. The target information is used for indicating Doppler frequency shift information between the second device and the third device. The Doppler frequency shift information is Doppler frequency shift information associated with motion of a sensing target in a channel.”) transmitted by the wireless access point (Toner 0038 “In some cases, one or more of the wireless communication devices 102 is a Wi-Fi access point or another type of wireless access point (WAP)”); and
determining a third frequency shift of the third reflection based upon a difference between a third frequency of the third reflection received by the third wireless sensor and the magnitude of the frequency of the first wireless signal (Yao Abstract “The first device obtains target information based on the first information and the second information. The first information is Doppler frequency shift information obtained by a third device by measuring a first signal sent by a second device. The second information is Doppler frequency shift information obtained by the second device by measuring a second signal sent by the third device. The target information is used for indicating Doppler frequency shift information between the second device and the third device. The Doppler frequency shift information is Doppler frequency shift information associated with motion of a sensing target in a channel.”) transmitted by the wireless access point (Toner 0038 “In some cases, one or more of the wireless communication devices 102 is a Wi-Fi access point or another type of wireless access point (WAP)”) transmitted by the wireless access point (Toner 0038 “In some cases, one or more of the wireless communication devices 102 is a Wi-Fi access point or another type of wireless access point (WAP)”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the system and method of Yao with the teachings of Toner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system efficiency (Yao 0067). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Yao merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular motion features. Since both Toner and Yao disclose similar motion sensing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 29, the cited prior art teaches The method as in claim 1, wherein determining the type of the motion of the person further includes:
determining the type of the motion of the person based on a combination of: i) the first frequency shift of the first reflection of the first wireless signal off the person, ii) a second frequency shift of a second reflection of the first wireless signal off the person, and iii) a third frequency shift of a third reflection of the first wireless signal off person (Yao Abstract “The first device obtains target information based on the first information and the second information. The first information is Doppler frequency shift information obtained by a third device by measuring a first signal sent by a second device. The second information is Doppler frequency shift information obtained by the second device by measuring a second signal sent by the third device. The target information is used for indicating Doppler frequency shift information between the second device and the third device. The Doppler frequency shift information is Doppler frequency shift information associated with motion of a sensing target in a channel.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the system and method of Yao with the teachings of Toner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system efficiency (Yao 0067). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Yao merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular motion features. Since both Toner and Yao disclose similar motion sensing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 30, the cited prior art teaches The method as in claim 29, wherein the mobile communication device is operative to display an identity of an item available in the network environment (Toner 0007 “FIG. 3 is a diagram showing an example graphical display on a user interface on a user device.”); and
wherein the determined type of the motion represents an interaction of the person with the item (Toner 0072 “In some implementations, an alert (e.g., a notification, an audio alert, or a video alert) may be provided based on the output of the motion detection system.”).
Regarding claim 31, the cited prior art teaches The method as in claim 29, wherein the type of the motion is a first type of motion of the person at a first instance of time, the method further comprising:
at a second instance of time, transmitting a second wireless signal in the network environment; determining a first frequency shift of a first reflection of the second wireless signal off the person determining a second frequency shift of a second reflection of the second wireless signal off the person; determining a third frequency shift of a third reflection of the second wireless signal off the person (Yao Abstract “The first device obtains target information based on the first information and the second information. The first information is Doppler frequency shift information obtained by a third device by measuring a first signal sent by a second device. The second information is Doppler frequency shift information obtained by the second device by measuring a second signal sent by the third device. The target information is used for indicating Doppler frequency shift information between the second device and the third device. The Doppler frequency shift information is Doppler frequency shift information associated with motion of a sensing target in a channel.”); and determining a second type of motion of the person at the second instance of time based on the combination of (Toner 0090 “determine discrete locations, pathways, or sequence of motion events. Furthermore, motion classifiers can include trend and anomaly detection as well as artificial intelligence and machine learning. In various embodiments, classifiers are indicative of an occurrence or non-occurrence of a predetermined motion event.”; 0104 “detecting the occurrence of specified motion events”): i) the first frequency shift of the first reflection of the second wireless signal off the person, ii) the second frequency shift of the second reflection of the second wireless signal off the person, and iii) the third frequency shift of the third reflection of the second wireless signal off the person (Yao Abstract “The first device obtains target information based on the first information and the second information. The first information is Doppler frequency shift information obtained by a third device by measuring a first signal sent by a second device. The second information is Doppler frequency shift information obtained by the second device by measuring a second signal sent by the third device. The target information is used for indicating Doppler frequency shift information between the second device and the third device. The Doppler frequency shift information is Doppler frequency shift information associated with motion of a sensing target in a channel.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the system and method of Yao with the teachings of Toner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system efficiency (Yao 0067). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Yao merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular motion features. Since both Toner and Yao disclose similar motion sensing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toner et al. (US- 20230171326 hereinafter Toner) in view of Yao et al. (US 20250240106 hereinafter Yao) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Zalewski et al. (US 20200118400 hereinafter Zalewski).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teaches The method as in claim 1, (Yao Abstract “The Doppler frequency shift information is Doppler frequency shift information associated with motion of a sensing target in a channel.”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the system and method of Yao with the teachings of Toner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve system efficiency (Yao 0067). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Yao merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular motion features. Since both Toner and Yao disclose similar motion sensing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Zalewski teaches
wherein monitoring the motion of the person includes: monitoring browsing activity of the person viewing products available for selection from a shelf in the network environment (0062 “The features is processed as inputs to a model that classifies the interaction to be one of a take event or a returning event of the item from the shelf or back to the shelf.”; 0161 “Some sensors may be weight sensors, some may be image sensors, e.g., cameras, and some may be motion sensors”)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the system and method of Zalewski with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve confidence levels (Zalewski 0174). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Zalewski merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular motion features. Since both the cited prior art and Zalewski disclose similar motion sensing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The method as in claim 1
Toner does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Zalewski teaches
wherein monitoring the motion of the person includes: detecting the person acquiring an item in the network environment based upon at least the first frequency shift of the first reflection of the first wireless signal off of the person (0062 “The features is processed as inputs to a model that classifies the interaction to be one of a take event or a returning event of the item from the shelf or back to the shelf.”; 0161 “Some sensors may be weight sensors, some may be image sensors, e.g., cameras, and some may be motion sensors”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the system and method of Zalewski with the teachings of Toner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve confidence levels (Zalewski 0174). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Zalewski merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular motion features. Since both Toner and Zalewski disclose similar motion sensing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toner et al. (US- 20230171326 hereinafter Toner) in view of Yao et al. (US 20250240106 hereinafter Yao) as applied to claim 1, and further in in view of Kuo (US 20190369224).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teaches The method as in claim 1, wherein transmitting wireless signals from the wireless access point includes: transmitting a first wireless signal from the wireless access point at a first wireless frequency (fig 1);
Toner does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Kuo teaches wherein monitoring the motion of the person includes determining a first frequency shift of a first reflection(0018 “External motion of person 110 may cause waves or signals reflected from moving person 110 to experience a frequency shift that is related to a radial component of velocity of person 110. External motion of person 110 is defined as any change in a pose or position of person 110's body center of mass (BCOM). This includes all external motion due to walking”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the system and method of Kuo with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Kuo 0003). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Kuo merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular motion features. Since both Toner and the cited prior art disclose similar motion sensing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17 claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 7.
Claim(s) 9, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toner et al. (US- 20230171326 hereinafter Toner) in view of Yao et al. (US 20250240106 hereinafter Yao) as applied to claim 1, and further in in view of Givehchian et al. (US 20230336946 hereinafter Givehchian).
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art teaches The method as in claim 1, wherein detecting the presence of the person in the network environment includes: i) receiving a wireless communication from a mobile communication device, which is operated by the person,
While Toner discusses tracking gait information, the cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Givehchian teaches
mapping a unique identifier value in the received wireless communication to an identity of the person (Givehchian 0016 “FIG. 7 is an illustration of an enhanced human identification system that implements machine learning to identify a person based CSI input, according to an embodiment.”; 0035 “The combination of gait recognition and shape recognition we then be used to identify the person collectively.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the system and method of Givehchian with the teachings of Toner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce cost of implantation (Givehchian 0023). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Givehchian merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular identifier. Since both Toner and Givehchian disclose similar motion recognition system, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19 claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 9.
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toner et al. (US- 20230171326 hereinafter Toner) in view of Yao et al. (US 20250240106 hereinafter Yao) as applied to claim 24, and further in in view of Assouad (US 20240354446).
Regarding claim 25, the cited prior art teaches The method as in claim 24, wherein the determined type of the motion of the person is a first type of motion;
wherein determining the first type of the motion of the person further includes: i) comparing a combination of the first frequency shift, the second frequency shift, and the third frequency shift, to multiple (Toner 0109 “At 1212, the central context processor 1208 may receive stored motion context descriptions 1218 from a database 1216 and use the motion context descriptions to filter the motion pattern detection function 1210 into filtered motion signatures 1220 to match motion context”); and ii) matching the combination to a first type of (Toner 0109 “At 1212, the central context processor 1208 may receive stored motion context descriptions 1218 from a database 1216 and use the motion context descriptions to filter the motion pattern detection function 1210 into filtered motion signatures 1220 to match motion context”).
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Assouad teaches using difference types of frequency shift signatures (0154 “In some embodiments, radar subsystem 123 may be operable to detect and classify human motion based on, at least in part, a micro-Doppler effect, wherein human motion can cause a frequency shift of a radar echo signal, which produces a corresponding Doppler signature”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the system and method of Assouad with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Assouad 0144). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Assouad merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular motion features. Since both Toner and the cited prior art disclose similar motion sensing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 26, the cited prior art teaches The method as in claim 24, wherein determining the type of the motion of the person further includes: matching a combination of the first frequency shift, the second frequency shift, and the third frequency shift, to (Yao 0252 “The sensing result is a sensing result corresponding to a sensing service with Doppler as a basic measurement quantity, including but not limited to: a motion speed, a motion direction, whether a target exists or a quantity of targets, a motion trajectory, an action, a gesture, and a vital sign (breathing, heartbeat, or the like).”).
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Assouad teaches using difference types of frequency shift signatures (0154 “In some embodiments, radar subsystem 123 may be operable to detect and classify human motion based on, at least in part, a micro-Doppler effect, wherein human motion can cause a frequency shift of a radar echo signal, which produces a corresponding Doppler signature”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the system and method of Assouad with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve detection (Assouad 0144). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Assouad merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular motion features. Since both Assouad and the cited prior art disclose similar motion sensing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toner et al. (US- 20230171326 hereinafter Toner) in view of Yao et al. (US 20250240106 hereinafter Yao), and further in in view of Assouad (US 20240354446) as applied to claim 26, and further in view of Duffy et al. (US 20220156353 hereinafter Duffy).
Regarding claim 27, the cited prior art teaches The method as in claim 26,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Duffy teaches wherein the frequency shift signature associated with the determined type of motion includes multiple different magnitudes of frequency shifts (0108 “gesture signature can be compared to the corresponding element of the reference gesture signature. This may be done to identify similarities and differences in properties such as the timing, rate of change, or magnitude of the frequency shifts.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the system and method of Duffy with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the system (Duffy 0121). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Duffy merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular motion features. Since both Duffy and the cited prior art disclose similar motion sensing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 28, the cited prior art teaches The method as in claim 26,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Duffy teaches wherein the frequency shift signature associated with the determined type of motion includes multiple different magnitudes of frequency shifts, each of which occurs at different times (0108 “gesture signature can be compared to the corresponding element of the reference gesture signature. This may be done to identify similarities and differences in properties such as the timing, rate of change, or magnitude of the frequency shifts.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the system and method of Duffy with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve the system (Duffy 0121). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Duffy merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular motion features. Since both Duffy and the cited prior art disclose similar motion sensing systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Sanders et al. (US PAT 11374779) discloses “Apparatus and methods for displaying data in an immersive environment wherein sensor (e.g., IoT sensor) data is aggregated via a gateway and various different types of air interfaces depending on application and location (e.g., LoRa, Wi-Fi, 5G NR, C-band, 60 GHz, CBRS, etc.), aggregated at a cloud service, processed through an analytics platform, and transmitted to a UI platform for display on a user interface. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights