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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention 1 in the reply filed on 6-1-2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-12 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because they cannot depend from a multiple dependent claim such as claim 3. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 1, it is unclear what the CIR confidence intervals are or how they are derived. It is further unclear what the “adaptive threshold” is, how it adapts and what is a threshold for. Further clarification the information the alarm unit is receive is required.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. There is not structural element to support how “a composition configured to enable a required bandwidth and optimize impedance matching” is done or ensured. As such, claims 3 and 4 will not be examined on the merits.
Claim 3 includes the phrase “the obstacle” which lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 3 and 4 refer to an obstacle. It is unclear if the obstacle is the target or something new. Further clarification is required.
As per claim 6, the phrase “a 3 dimensional system configured to estimate a height” makes the claim indefinite as it is unclear what the system is. A separate apparatus? Software? If Channel Impulse response is received, how does this translate to a 3D system to find height? Further clarification is required.
As per claim 8, it is unclear where, how or when the reference CIRs are obtained and when during operation a test CIR is measured. Further clarification is required.
As per claim 10, it is unclear how the target confirmation works. In claim 9 the data is used for target identification. It is unclear how target ID data is then also used for confirmation of a target. Further clarification is required.
As per claim 11, it is unclear how a test CIR phase change is tracked over time. As best examiner can tell, the test CIR is a known value so it is unclear how it changes. Further clarification is required.
As per claim 12, the phrase “the target is configured to be detected” makes the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the system will configure a target. It is further unclear how the reference and test CIRs detect a target without the use of the actual received UWB signals from claim 1. Further clarification is required.
Claims 2, 5, 7 and 9 are rejected as being dependent on the above claims.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2 and 5-12, as best understood by examiner, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0158340, published May 23, 2019.
As per claim 1, Zhang discloses A device comprising:- two matched antennas configured to transmit and receive ultra-wideband(UWB) signals (Zhang, ¶282 and 491 using matched and UWB);
an electronic circuit, coupled to the matched antennas, the electronic circuit comprising a microprocessor configured to process the received UWB signals and to measure a Channel Impulse Response (CIR) between a transmitter channel and a receiver channel of the electronic circuit (Zhang, ¶138),
the microprocessor further configured to convert a time between a transmission of the UWB signals and a receipt of the UWB signals into a distance, and the electronic circuit being further configured to detect a target and/or estimate a distance from the device to the target and/or track the target and/or track a distance of the target from the deviceand,or track a velocity of the target based on the processed UWB signals (Zhang, ¶295);
and- an alarm unit configured to receive, from a machine learning unit, information on the detected target, the information comprising a measurement of CIR confidence intervals and an adaptive threshold (Zhang, ¶375).
Zhang fails to expressly disclose the alarm unit receiving confidence intervals however it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to supply the alarm unit with the necessary information to determine whether to activate the alarm or not. It is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine alarm activation parameters.
As per claim 2, Zhang further discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the machine learning unit is coupled to the electronic circuit, wherein the machine learning unit comprises a processor and a memory, wherein the machine learning unit is configured to detect the target, classify the target, and declare an alarm based on the received UWB signals, the machine learning unit further comprising a machine learning algorithm stored in the memory, wherein the machine learning algorithm is configured to detect of the target, classify the target and the declare the alarm (Zhang, ¶329 using machine learning and feature extraction).
As per claim 5, Zhang further discloses the device as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, wherein an effective field of view of the device is up to 1800 and/or wherein the electronic circuit and/or the machine learning unit is configured to measure the CIR based on the received UWB signals and/or wherein a transmitter and receiver is configured to transmit and/or receive one or more pseudo-random noise[[, PRN,]] (PRN) codes (Zhang, ¶138 using CIR).
As per claim 6, Zhang further discloses the device as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, further comprising a 3-dimensional system configured to estimate a height of the detected target based on information received from the transmitter channel and/or the receiver channel of the electronic circuit (Zhang, ¶295 finding height).
As per claim 7, Zhang further discloses the device as claimed in any one of the preceding claims, when dependent on claim 2, wherein the machine learning unit is configured to determine a position of the target based on processed UWB signals (Zhang, ¶295).
As per claims 8 and 9, Zhang further discloses the device as claimed in any preceding claim where reference and test CIRs are derived and compared to identify a target (Zhang, ¶470-472).
As per claim 10, Zhang further discloses the device as claimed in claim 9, when dependent on claim 2, wherein the machine learning unit is configured to confirm a detection of a target when at least one of: (i)the test CIR differs in magnitude and/or phase, wherein the magnitude and phase comprise a real and an imaginary part, from the one or more of the plurality of reference CIRs (Zhang, ¶284).
As per claim 11, Zhang further discloses the device as claimed in any one of claims 8 to 10, wherein the detected target is configured to be tracked by the device, and wherein a velocity is configured to be estimated by the device, by the electronic circuit and/or the machine learning unit, wherein the device is configured to evaluate a distance estimate over time and track a phase change of a plurality of different parts of the test CIR (Zhang, ¶313 object tracking).
As per claim 12, Zhang further discloses the device of any one of claims 8 to 11, wherein upon a difference is detected the electronic circuit and/or machine learning unit in the test CIR in comparison to one or more of the plurality of reference CIRs, the target is configured to be detected, and a distance between the device and the target is configured to be determined by a position of the difference in the test CIR and/or if the difference no longer exists, the electronic circuit and/or machine learning unit is configured to determine that the target is blocking the transmitter channel and/or the receiver channel (Zhang, ¶295 positioning).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights