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 .
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 1-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 includes the limitations of “dividing each of the plurality of data sets into a plurality of sub-datasets based on different parts of the sub-carrier channel frequency responses, and then for each of the sub-datasets, calculating a correlation coefficient between the sub-carrier amplitudes contained in the same sub-dataset to form a sub-dataset correlation coefficient vector, and calculating a Mahalanobis distance between the sub-carrier amplitudes contained in the same sub-dataset to form a sub-dataset distance vector,” “obtaining and taking an average of variances of a plurality of sub-dataset correlation coefficient vectors as a human activity detection value, and obtaining and taking an average of variances of a plurality of the sub-datasets distance vectors as a human presence detection value,” and “in response to the human activity detection value being greater than a human activity threshold, determining a human activity state; in response to the human presence detection value being smaller than a human presence threshold, determining a human presence state, and in response to the human presence detection value being greater than or equal to a human presence threshold, determining a human absence state” which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, is understood as mathematical calculations to group, average out, and compare data regarding the sub-carrier amplitudes, which falls under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim includes the additional limitation of, “selecting, by the smart device, in a plurality of detection environments, a sub-carrier data source device” and “obtaining, by the smart device, sub-carrier amplitudes from the stored sub-carrier channel frequency responses” which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, is understood as generally “applying” the judicial exception using a computer as a tool for performing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering, filtering, and storing sub-carrier data. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale as above. Claim 16 does include the additional limitations of a “non-transitory computer-readable medium” and a “processor”, however, as generally recited, it is interpreted as merely generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea. Similar recitations in claims 4-5, and 12 are likewise rejected, and dependent claims 2-15 and 17-19 fail to cure the deficiencies. Examiner notes that claims 14 and 20 are objected to as depending from a rejected claim but curing the deficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 20, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to Prong One, Applicant argues that amended claim 1 does not relate to an abstract idea because the claimed invention “cannot be achieved through mere mathematical calculations, mental processes, or abstract ideas.” Examiner disagrees. In fact, most of the limitation of claim 1 relate explicitly to mathematical calculations performed on signal data, as explained in the rejection hereinabove.
With regard to Prong Two, Applicant argues that, “Thus, even if amended Claim 1 were deemed to recite a judicial exception (which is not admitted), such exception has been fully integrated into practical technical applications to solve real-world technical problems.” This argument is conclusory and does not necessarily follow directly from an argument that claim 1 does not relate to an abstract idea. Regardless, Examiner disagrees as outlined above. Claim 1 does not relate to improvements to the functioning of a computer, does not apply the abstract idea via a particular machine, and does not use the abstract idea in a meaningful way. On the contrary, the embodiment of claim 1 merely carries out a set program without regard to the results or conclusions of the method (i.e., nothing changes regardless of whether a human is or is not detected). Furthermore, the embodiment of claim 1 utilizes a generic electronic device recited at the highest level of abstraction, e.g., a “smart device.” Lastly, the embodiment of claim 1 does not actually do anything with the final determination steps, i.e., it does not solve a problem or otherwise put the determination to a real-world use. Compare to claims 14 and 20 as amended, which are not rejected under §101 and which do improve the functioning of a computer by using the results of the final determination steps to enter an automatic calibration mode and recalibrate the detection thresholds based on the results.
With regard to Step 2B, Examiner notes that the claims do not recite “additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception” because, as detailed above, all of the additional elements merely relate gathering, filtering, and storing data at a high level of abstraction, which are activities considered to be well-known and conventional as a matter of law per Berkheimer, as explained in MPEP §2106.05(d)(II).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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 at 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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648