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 .
The preliminary amendment filed on 07/06/2023 has been entered. Claims 1-15 are amended. Claims 1-15 are pending and addressed below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show any textual description of arrows, boxes in the figures as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is drawn to a computer program. Computer programs per se do not fit within recognized categories of statutory subject matter.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim is drawn to a “computer readable medium”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent (or lacks an explicit definition). See MPEP § 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (radio frequency system), however the claim does not recite any structural elements that would define the claimed apparatus. The claim is therefore indefinite.
Claims 2-11, which are dependent upon claim 1, are subject to the same rejection.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerner; Michael et al US 20210041549 A1, hereinafter Kerner, in view of YOO; Homin et al US 20240077584 A1, hereinafter YOO.
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 14-15, Kerner teaches, a radio frequency system comprising at least two nodes for performing radio frequency based sensing in a sensing area (Kerner see Fig. 1; Fig. 8, [94]; [102] further teaches “sensing in a sensing area” as disclosed in “The sensing process may be a process … in the environment (e.g., in the same room, or nearby, etc.) of the wireless device 103”);
wherein the radio frequency system is configured for determining a current context for performing radio frequency based sensing (Kerner [0006] “At some time (or multiple times) during the communication, the first wireless device may determine to perform a sensing measurement. For example, the first wireless device may determine to sense/measure a range/distance, angle, speed, or velocity, etc. relative to a reflector such as an object, structure, or person.”, therefore implying system is configured to determine a context for sensing such as distance, speed, representing location, motion), and for configuring at least one of the nodes for performing radio frequency based sensing (see Kerner [103] “For example, a wireless device 103 may be configured with various mechanisms to trigger sensing measurements under various conditions such as proximity to another object or wireless device, rapid motion or acceleration, changing wireless conditions, etc.”),
While teaching that RF sensing system of Kerner is configured for the sensing based on channel estimation of the received signal in the node (Kerner [0107] “For example, the wireless device 103 may select communication transmissions that include channel estimation sequences … Accordingly, the wireless device 103 may select to use channel estimation sequences transmitted as a component of WLAN and/or cellular signals to wireless device 105 for sensing.”, Kerner does not explicitly teach performing sensing “based on channel state information, received signal strength indicator, or a combination thereof” as recited in the limitation wherein the configuring the at least one of the nodes comprises selecting whether the node performs radio frequency based sensing based on: channel state information, received signal strength indicator, or a combination thereof; based on the current context.
However, in the same field of endeavor, YOO teaches, RF sensing system performing sensing “based on channel state information, received signal strength indicator, or a combination thereof” (see YOO Fig. 5, [92] “[0092] “Specifically, the sensing system extracts signal changes related to human activity first based on different sensing methods (e.g., Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI), Channel State Information (CSI)”, and [93]-[99]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kerner to include the features as taught by YOO above in order to provide a method in which a wireless device performs wireless sensing to facilitate a variety of applications including intrusion detection, room occupancy monitoring, daily activity recognition, gesture recognition, vital sign monitoring, user identification and indoor location (YOO [0002], [0006]).
With respect to claim 12, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding method. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
With respect to claim 14, claim recites the identical features of claim 12 for a corresponding computer program product. Kerner further teaches “A computer program product” (Kerner [159] “For example, some embodiments may be realized as a computer-implemented method, a computer-readable memory medium, or a computer system.”). Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
With respect to claim 15, claim recites the identical features of claim 12 for a corresponding computer readable medium. Kerner further teaches “A computer readable medium” (Kerner [159] “For example, some embodiments may be realized as a computer-implemented method, a computer-readable memory medium, or a computer system.”). Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
Regarding claim 2, Kerner, in view of YOO, teaches the radio frequency system, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Kerner and YOO further teach, wherein the current context includes one or more of: a sensing application, a latency requirement, a radio power consumption requirement, a radio transmit power requirement, a radio beam shape requirement, a radio receive beamforming requirement, a current location of the radio frequency system, a current location of the at least one of the nodes, a current date, a current operation mode of the at least one of the nodes, environmental effects, currently available bandwidth in the radio frequency system, current capabilities of the at least one of the nodes, current properties of the sensing area, a false event detection rate requirement, and a growth stage of a plant in the sensing area (Kerner [0006] teaches “current properties of the sensing area” and YOO [86] teaches “environmental effects” and/or “current properties of the sensing area” and [99] “a sensing application”. Satisfies “one or more of” criteria).
Regarding claim 3, Kerner, in view of YOO, teaches the radio frequency system, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
YOO further teaches, wherein the radio frequency system is configured for concurrently performing radio frequency based sensing based on channel state information and received signal strength indicator (YOO Fig. 5 and [0094] “1) Measurements: Measure RSSI, CSI, Doppler shift, etc. as input values”, [0095] 2) Derived Metrics with Human movements: Signal strength variations, Channel condition variations, Frequency shift associated with human body depth, Frequency shift associated with human moving speed” suggests sensing is concurrently performed based on CSI and RSSI).
Regarding claim 4, Kerner, in view of YOO, teaches the radio frequency system, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
YOO further teaches, wherein the at least two nodes include: a transmitting node, a channel state information receiving node for performing radio frequency based sensing based on channel state information, and a received signal strength indicator receiving node for performing radio frequency based sensing based on received signal strength indicator (Based on YOO Figs. 4 and 5, [92], [94]-[95], sensing system performs RSSI and CSI measurements in the sensing environment from Wi-Fi signals, therefore, implying measurements will be collected from various nodes that includes a CSI receiving node and a RSSI receiving node, from a Wi-Fi signal of a transmitting node (see Fig. 2 for the RF system).
Regarding claim 5, Kerner, in view of YOO, teaches the radio frequency system, as outlined in the rejection of claim 4.
YOO further suggests, wherein the transmitting node is configured for transmitting same radio frequency messages to the channel state information receiving node and the received signal strength indicator receiving node for performing radio frequency based sensing (YOO [0146] “Existing protocols based on Wireless Sensing and existing operation methods are described as follows. 1) The transmitting device transmits a signal that can be measured such as Wi-Fi CSI (Channel State Information)”, [0094] “1) Measurements: Measure RSSI, CSI, Doppler shift, etc. as input values” suggests same signal from the transmitting node may be used for both CSI and RSSI based sensing).
Regarding claim 6, Kerner, in view of YOO, teaches the radio frequency system, as outlined in the rejection of claim 5.
Kerner and YOO further teach, wherein the transmitting node is configured for transmitting and receiving the same radio frequency messages transmitted to the channel state information receiving node and the received signal strength indicator receiving node for performing radio frequency based sensing by the transmitting node (The claimed limitation “the transmitting node is configured for transmitting and receiving the same radio frequency messages” is understood, in line with Spec page 10, lines 1-14, as the transmitting node, in addition to transmitting, receiving the reflection of the RF signal, used for CSI and RSSI based sensing, to measure Doppler effect. Kerner Fig.8; [88] “For example, the first wireless device may estimate a Doppler shift of a reflection and use the Doppler shift to determine a relative speed of the reflector 801.”, teaches transmitting node receiving the same transmitted signal as reflection and perform RF-based doppler sensing. See also YOO [0094] “1) Measurements: Measure RSSI, CSI, Doppler shift, etc. as input values”).
Regarding claim 7, Kerner, in view of YOO, teaches the radio frequency system, as outlined in the rejection of claim 4.
YOO further teaches, wherein the channel state information receiving node is configured for performing radio frequency based sensing based on channel state information in a channel state information sensing area, wherein the received signal strength indicator receiving node is configured for performing radio frequency based sensing based on received signal strength indicator in a received signal strength indicator sensing area, wherein the channel state information sensing area and the received signal strength indicator sensing area are included in the sensing area, and wherein at least part of the channel state information sensing area overlaps with the received signal strength indicator sensing area in an overlap sensing area (The claim is about RSSI and CSI sensing areas being included in the sensing area. YOO [143] “As a result, through the proposed method, it is possible to implement a system that can have sufficient accuracy of human recognition and user identification in the user's home environment, so that a new paradigm of IoT future smart home such as ‘artificial intelligence device that recognizes and identifies a person’ device can be created.”, and Fig. 5 and [93]-[95], teaches performing RSSI and CSI based sensing in a user home environment i.e., sensing area, therefore, implies that RSSI and CSI sensing areas are included in the same user-home environment).
Regarding claim 8, Kerner, in view of YOO, teaches the radio frequency system, as outlined in the rejection of claim 7.
YOO further teaches, wherein the received signal strength indicator receiving node is selected from the at least two nodes for performing radio frequency based sensing in the sensing area, the channel state information receiving node is selected from the at least two nodes for performing radio frequency based sensing in the sensing area, or the received signal strength indicator receiving node and the channel state information receiving node are selected from the at least two nodes for performing radio frequency based sensing in the sensing area such that the overlap sensing area is maximized and/or an area of interest is within the overlap area (The claim is obvious from the teachings of Figs. 4 and 5 and explanation above in the rejection of claims 4 and 7, that RSSI and CSI nodes can be selected from nodes which belong to the user-home environment (=sensing area)).
Regarding claim 9, Kerner, in view of YOO, teaches the radio frequency system, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
YOO further teaches, wherein the radio frequency system is configured for determining one or more properties of the sensing area based on performing radio frequency based sensing based on received signal strength indicator and/or channel state information (YOO [86] teaches, sensing system determines different properties such as human presence detection, fall detection, motion detection, activity recognition, gesture recognition etc. for the sensing area, using e.g., CSI).
Regarding claim 11, Kerner, in view of YOO, teaches the radio frequency system, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Kerner further teaches, wherein at least two of the nodes have different capabilities (Kerner [89] “One or both of the wireless device 103 and the wireless device 105 may also be capable of communicating via one or more additional wireless communication protocols, such as any of Bluetooth (BT), Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), near field communication (NFC), GSM, UMTS (WCDMA, TDSCDMA), LTE, LTE-Advanced (LTE-A), NR, 3GPP2 CDMA2000 (e.g., 1×RTT, 1×EV-DO, HRPD, eHRPD), Wi-MAX, Wi-Gig, GPS, etc. The ranging (or other sensing techniques) described herein may be performed using WLAN or various other wireless technologies, including BT, BLE, NFC, or cellular, etc”, teaches nodes can have different wireless capabilities).
Regarding claim 13, Kerner, in view of YOO, teaches the method, as outlined in the rejection of claim 12.
YOO further teaches, wherein the method includes one or more of the steps:
concurrently performing radio frequency based sensing based on channel state information and received signal strength indicator (YOO Fig. 5 and [0094] “1) Measurements: Measure RSSI, CSI, Doppler shift, etc. as input values”, [0095] 2) Derived Metrics with Human movements: Signal strength variations, Channel condition variations, Frequency shift associated with human body depth, Frequency shift associated with human moving speed” suggests sensing is concurrently performed based on CSI and RSSI. Satisfies “one or more of the steps” criteria),
transmitting by a transmitting node same radio frequency messages to a channel state information receiving node for performing radio frequency based sensing based on channel state information and a received signal strength indicator receiving node for performing radio frequency based sensing based on received signal strength indicator, transmitting and receiving by the transmitting node the same radio frequency messages transmitted to the channel state information receiving node and the received signal strength indicator receiving node for performing radio frequency based sensing by the transmitting node, performing radio frequency based sensing in a channel state information sensing area, wherein the channel state information sensing area is included in the sensing area, performing radio frequency based sensing in a received signal strength indicator sensing area, wherein the received signal strength indicator sensing area is included in the sensing area, providing that at least part of the channel state information sensing area overlaps with the received signal strength indicator sensing area in an overlap sensing area, providing that the overlap sensing area is maximized, providing that an area of interest is within the overlap area, determining one or more properties of the sensing area based on performing radio frequency based sensing based on received signal strength indicator and/or channel state information, and performing radio frequency based sensing for monitoring growth of a plant.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerner, in view of YOO, and further in view of IDS reference XU; Qinyi et al US 20190097865 A1, hereinafter XU.
Regarding claim 10, Kerner, in view of YOO, teaches the radio frequency system, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
Kerner and YOO do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, XU teaches, wherein the radio frequency system is configured for performing radio frequency based sensing for monitoring growth of a plant (XU Fig. 1; [0289] “The object may be …, a plant, …”, [310] “A motion may comprise at least one of: …, a plant motion, …”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kerner and YOO to include the features as taught by XU above in order to provide a method for recognizing events (e.g. events related to object motion and/or security) to provide enough accuracy in existing security systems (XU [97]-[98]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NAM; US 20250203516 A1 - AIR-INTERFACE-BASED ENVIRONMENT SENSING ASSISTED BY DEVICE-EQUIPPED TARGET OBJECT; para [127], Fig. 4B.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0232. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST; Friday variable.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472