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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-8, 10-14 remain pending in the application. Claim 9 is canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/11/2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 7 of 9) about the objection to Abstract, the objection has been overcome by the replacement of Abstract filed on 03/11/2026.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 7 of 9) about the objections to claims 1-4 and 7-13, the objections have been overcome by the amendment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 7 of 9) about the rejections of claims 7, 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the rejections have been overcome by the amendment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 7 of 9) about the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 101, the rejection has been overcome by the amendment.
Regarding Applicant’s argument (REMARKS page 8 of 9) about “Ludlo and Varno fail to teach or suggest at least a "detection unit is adapted to perform passive Doppler sensing additionally to radiofrequency sensing based on a sensing result determined for at least one of the at least two devices and based on a device state of at least one of the at least two devices” (see REMARKS page 8 of 9 lines 6-9) in the amended Claim 1, Examiner disagrees because Ludlo (‘741) does disclose the claimed language “the detection unit is adapted to perform passive Doppler sensing additionally to radiofrequency sensing based on a sensing result determined for at least one of the at least two devices and based on a device state of at least one of the at least two devices” { Fig.1(a)(b); Fig.3; [0018] lines 1-2 (FIGS. 1(a) and 1(b) are alternative schematic views of a bidirectional bistatic radar system); [0025] lines 3-4 (first and second spaced apart sensor nodes 12, 14); [0029] lines 4-10 (detectable changes, in the output signal from the antenna 20 at the receiving node 12, 14. Hence as the target 24 moves through the detection Zone 22 a unique signature is detectable in the receiving antenna output, typically as a result of amplitude and phase modulation caused in the received signal by the objects movement.); [0035] lines 1-6 (the respective nodes 12, 14 (and in particular their respective transceiver 20) of a pair Switch at intervals between operating in receive mode and in transmit mode so that at any given time, one is operating in receive mode and the other is operating in transmit mode.), 9 (The system 10 therefore has a first operating state), 12 (second operating state); [0038] lines 1-7 (With reference to FIGS. 1(a) and 1(b), the instantaneous Doppler frequency of the scattered multipath signal 16B created as the target 24 moves through the detection Zone 22 of a FS radar system is determined by the targets speed, V, the wavelength, λ, of the continuous wave signal used in the system, the angles from transmitter to target, αh(t), and from receiver to target, βh(t), and the baseline crossing angle φ:
PNG
media_image1.png
38
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); [0041] lines 1 (detecting human intruders), 5-9 (required for each channel (i.e. in each of the alternate operating states of the system 10), meaning that the respective transceivers 20 at each side of the link have to switch between transmit and receive modes); Examiner’s note: Doppler estimate in the receiver of bistatic radar is “passive Doppler sensing”. “a result of amplitude and phase modulation caused in the received signal by the objects movement” in [0029] lines 4-10 is a “radiofrequency sensing”. Doppler shift (that is doppler frequency, e.gm Eq.(1)) is a frequency shift amount of “spectrum of the received radiofrequency signal”. That is, Doppler estimate in the receiver of bistatic radar (which is “passive Doppler sensing”) is performed based on the received signal from antenna (which is radiofrequency sensing), which addresses claimed language “perform passive Doppler sensing additionally to radiofrequency sensing”. }. Examiner added explanation details in this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: 1) “the detection unit is adapted to perform passive Doppler sensing additionally to radiofrequency sensing” in lines 20-21. It appears that “the detection unit is adapted to perform passive Doppler sensing additionally to radiofrequency sensing” in lines 20-21 is the same as the combination of “the detection unit is adapted to perform the passive Doppler sensing based on the received radiofrequency signal” mentioned in lines 16-17 and “the detection unit is adapted to perform radiofrequency sensing” mentioned in lines 18-19. 2) “for” in line 21. It appears that it should be “by”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: 1) “the passive Doppler sensing is performed in addition to the radiofrequency sensing” in lines 19-20. It appears that “the passive Doppler sensing is performed in addition to the radiofrequency sensing” in lines 19-20 is the same as the combination of “performing the passive Doppler sensing” mentioned in lines 15-16 and “performing radiofrequency sensing” mentioned in line 18. 2) “for” in line 20. It appears that it should be “by”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: “the method” in lines 1-2. It appears that it should be “the detection method”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8, 10-12 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 recites the limitations: 1) "passive Doppler sensing" in line 20. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the "passive Doppler sensing" in line 20 is the same as the “a passive Doppler sensing” mentioned in lines 11-12. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as "the passive Doppler sensing". 2) “radiofrequency sensing” in line 21. It is indefinite because it is not clear whether or not the “radiofrequency sensing” in line 21 is the same as the “radiofrequency sensing” mentioned in line 19. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, this limitation is being interpreted as “the radiofrequency sensing”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claims 2-8, 10-12 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1 because each of dependent claims 2-8, 10-12 is unclear, at least, in that it depends on unclear independent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-6, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludlo et al. (US 2016/0178741, hereafter Ludlo) in view of Yomo et al. (US 2018/0088221, hereafter Yomo).
Regarding claim 1, Ludlo (‘741) discloses that A detection system for detecting motion of a subject by utilizing at least two devices adapted to send and receive radiofrequency signals { Fig.1(a)(b); [0005] lines 1-2 (intruder detection system); [0026] lines 7-8 (the signals 16 comprise electromagnetic signals, typically in the radio frequency); [0029] lines 6-8 (as the target 24 moves through the detection Zone 22 a unique signature is detectable in the receiving antenna output,) }, the detection system comprising:
a control unit for controlling the at least two devices such that at least one of the at least two devices is a sending device configured to send a radiofrequency signal with a sending signal frequency and such that at least one of the at least two devices is a receiving device configured to receive a radiofrequency signal that is indicative of reflections of the sent radiofrequency signal of the subject { Fig.1(a)(b); [0069] lines 21-23 (the system further including control means configured to cause one node of the pair to operate in the transmit mode while the other node of the pair operates in the receive mode) },
{Fig.6(a) (transceiver @ f1); [0063] lines 1-4 (Fig.6(a) and 6(b), each node 12, 14 of a pair is configured to transmit and receive signals at each of first and second different frequencies (f1, f2).)}, and
a detection unit for detecting motion of the subject by performing a passive Doppler sensing based on the received radiofrequency signal and the provided sending signal frequency { Fig.1(a)(b); [0018] lines 1-2 (FIGS. 1(a) and 1(b) are alternative schematic views of a bidirectional bistatic radar system); [0038] lines 1-7 (With reference to FIGS. 1(a) and 1(b), the instantaneous Doppler frequency of the scattered multipath signal 16B created as the target 24 moves through the detection Zone 22 of a FS radar system is determined by the targets speed, V, the wavelength, λ, of the continuous wave signal used in the system, the angles from transmitter to target, αh(t), and from receiver to target, βh(t), and the baseline crossing angle φ:
PNG
media_image1.png
38
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), ; Examiner’s note: Doppler estimate in the receiver of bistatic radar is “passive Doppler sensing” },
wherein the detection unit is adapted to determine an excitation in a frequency range in a spectrum of the received radiofrequency signal {Fig.3 RSSI vs. frequency; Fig.5 items 47 and 47’ (FFT); [0012] line 4 (RSSI (Received Signal Strength Indication)); [0020] lines 1-3 (time-domain and frequency domain plots of RSSI variation as an intruder passes though a bidirectional bistatic radar link,)},
the excitation is substantially constant over a predetermined time period { Fig.3 RSSI vs. frequency and RSSI vs. Time; [0020] lines 1-3 (time-domain and frequency domain plots of RSSI variation as an intruder passes though a bidirectional bistatic radar link,); [0060] lines 3 from bottom (a given measurement period, 0.1 seconds)},
the detection unit is adapted to perform the passive Doppler sensing based on the received radiofrequency signal by filtering out the frequency range in the spectrum of the received radiofrequency signal { Fig.5; [0018] lines 1-2 (FIGS. 1(a) and 1(b) are alternative schematic views of a bidirectional bistatic radar system); [0038] lines 1-7 (With reference to FIGS. 1(a) and 1(b), the instantaneous Doppler frequency of the scattered multipath signal 16B created as the target 24 moves through the detection Zone 22 of a FS radar system is determined by the targets speed, V, the wavelength, λ, of the continuous wave signal used in the system, the angles from transmitter to target, αh(t), and from receiver to target, βh(t), and the baseline crossing angle φ:
PNG
media_image1.png
38
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
), ; Examiner’s note: Doppler estimate in the receiver of bistatic radar is “passive Doppler sensing”. Eq.(1) shows doppler frequency without “spectrum of the received radiofrequency signal”. Doppler shift is frequency shift amount of “spectrum of the received radiofrequency signal”. },
the detection unit is adapted to perform radiofrequency sensing based on the amplitude of the received radiofrequency signal { Fig.3 RSSI vs. frequency, RSSI vs. time; [0012] line 4 (RSSI (Received Signal Strength Indication)); [0020] lines 1-3 (time-domain and frequency domain plots of RSSI variation as an intruder passes though a bidirectional bistatic radar link); [0025] lines 3-4 (first and second spaced apart sensor nodes 12, 14); [0029] lines 4-10 (detectable changes, in the output signal from the antenna 20 at the receiving node 12, 14. Hence as the target 24 moves through the detection Zone 22 a unique signature is detectable in the receiving antenna output, typically as a result of amplitude and phase modulation caused in the received signal by the objects movement.); [0030] line 1 from bottom (RSSI (Received Signal Strength Indicator))}, and
the detection unit is adapted to perform passive Doppler sensing additionally to radiofrequency sensing based on a sensing result determined for at least one of the at least two devices and based on a device state of at least one of the at least two devices { Fig.1(a)(b); Fig.3; [0018] lines 1-2 (FIGS. 1(a) and 1(b) are alternative schematic views of a bidirectional bistatic radar system); [0025] lines 3-4 (first and second spaced apart sensor nodes 12, 14); [0029] lines 4-10 (detectable changes, in the output signal from the antenna 20 at the receiving node 12, 14. Hence as the target 24 moves through the detection Zone 22 a unique signature is detectable in the receiving antenna output, typically as a result of amplitude and phase modulation caused in the received signal by the objects movement.); [0035] lines 1-6 (the respective nodes 12, 14 (and in particular their respective transceiver 20) of a pair Switch at intervals between operating in receive mode and in transmit mode so that at any given time, one is operating in receive mode and the other is operating in transmit mode.), 9 (The system 10 therefore has a first operating state), 12 (second operating state); [0038] lines 1-7 (With reference to FIGS. 1(a) and 1(b), the instantaneous Doppler frequency of the scattered multipath signal 16B created as the target 24 moves through the detection Zone 22 of a FS radar system is determined by the targets speed, V, the wavelength, λ, of the continuous wave signal used in the system, the angles from transmitter to target, αh(t), and from receiver to target, βh(t), and the baseline crossing angle φ:
PNG
media_image1.png
38
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); [0041] lines 1 (detecting human intruders), 5-9 (required for each channel (i.e. in each of the alternate operating states of the system 10), meaning that the respective transceivers 20 at each side of the link have to switch between transmit and receive modes); Examiner’s note: Doppler estimate in the receiver of bistatic radar is “passive Doppler sensing”. “a result of amplitude and phase modulation caused in the received signal by the objects movement” in [0029] lines 4-10 is a “radiofrequency sensing”. Doppler shift (that is doppler frequency, e.gm Eq.(1)) is a frequency shift amount of “spectrum of the received radiofrequency signal”. That is, Doppler estimate in the receiver of bistatic radar (which is “passive Doppler sensing”) is performed based on the received signal from antenna (which is radiofrequency sensing), which addresses claimed language “perform passive Doppler sensing additionally to radiofrequency sensing”. }.
However, Ludlo (‘741) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “a signal frequency providing unit for providing the sending signal frequency with which the radiofrequency signal has been sent”. In the same field of endeavor, Yomo (‘221) discloses that
a signal frequency providing unit for providing the sending signal frequency with which the radiofrequency signal has been sent { Fig.10 item 801-1, 801-2, 803-1, 803-2 (sampling clock generator), 804-1, 804-2 (local signal generator); [0038] lines 7 (carrier frequency and the sampling clock frequencies); [0120] lines 6-7 (in FIG. 10, the radar A 101 includes a transmitter 801-1,), 9 (the radar B 102 includes a transmitter 801-2,); [0134] lines 4-6 (the local signal generator 804-1 generates local signals that are used as carrier signals by the transmitting high-frequency unit) },
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that applying a known technique (e.g. radar RF signal generator which include local signal generator, sampling clock generator, and code generator) to a known device (e.g. radar) ready for improvement to yield predictable results (e.g. generate radar transmitted signals and input to transmit antennas for transmission) and result in an improved system (e.g. generate local signals that are used as carrier signals for the transmitted signals by the transmitting high-frequency unit, which is normal radar usually do, as recognized by Yomo (‘221) {[0134] lines 4-6 (the local signal generator 804-1 generates local signals that are used as carrier signals by the transmitting high-frequency unit) }).
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Ludlo (‘741) and Yomo (‘221) discloses that in the detection system,
the control unit { see Ludlo (‘741) [0069] line 21 (the system further including control means)} is further adapted to control the at least two devices such that each of the at least two devices acts as a sending device configured to send each a radiofrequency signal with a different signal frequency { see Ludlo (‘741) Fig.1(a)(b); Fig.6(a)(b); [0069] lines 21-23 (the system further including control means configured to cause one node of the pair to operate in the transmit mode while the other node of the pair operates in the receive mode); Examiner’s note: f1 and f2 in Fig.6(a)(b) for “with a different signal frequency”} and the control unit is further adapted to control the at least two devices such that each of the at least two devices acts as a receiving device configured to receive a radiofrequency signal that is indicative of reflections of the sent radiofrequency signal of the subject corresponding to the sent radiofrequency signal of the respective other device { see Ludlo (‘741) Fig.1(a)(b)},
wherein the detection unit is adapted to perform the passive Doppler sensing based on the received radiofrequency signal { see Ludlo (‘741) [0038] lines 1-7 (With reference to FIGS. 1(a) and 1(b), the instantaneous Doppler frequency of the scattered multipath signal 16B created as the target 24 moves through the detection Zone 22 of a FS radar system is determined by the targets speed, V, the wavelength, λ, of the continuous wave signal used in the system, the angles from transmitter to target, αh(t), and from receiver to target, βh(t), and the baseline crossing angle φ:
PNG
media_image1.png
38
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
}.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Ludlo (‘741) does not disclose “the control unit is adapted to control the sending device to detect radiofrequency signals resulting from reflections of the sent radiofrequency signal sent by itself, and wherein the detection unit is adapted to monitor the detected radiofrequency signals and to detect motion of a subject further based on the monitored radiofrequency signals”. In the same field of endeavor, Yomo (‘221) discloses that in the detection system,
the control unit is adapted to control the sending device to detect radiofrequency signals resulting from reflections of the sent radiofrequency signal sent by itself { Fig.1 mono-static path}, and
wherein the detection unit is adapted to monitor the detected radiofrequency signals and to detect motion of a subject further based on the monitored radiofrequency signals { 0037] lines 2-3 (target T, which is the object to be detected, is one that is moving with respect to the multi-radar system 100.); [0049] lines 3-9 (monostatic mode, positional information at a point of detection of the target T within the detection object region, an reflection intensity (intensity vector) at each point of detection as determined by an angle, a relative velocity (line-of-sight speed information) at a point of detection with reference to the radars line of sight,); [0074] lines 5-7 (shape estimator 247 may have a tracking filter function of calculating an estimated position and an estimated velocity vector smoothed)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ludlo (‘741) with the teachings of Yomo (‘221) {monitor monostatic path signal and detect motion of target from the monostatic path signal } to monitor monostatic path signal and detect motion of target from the monostatic path signal. Doing so would use multi-radar system to secure a sufficient area of crossing of beams by synchronizing adjacent radars with each other, thus making it possible to effectively widen the detection region by using a monostatic radar mode and a bistatic radar mode so as to achieve a balance between improved target detection performance and enhanced resolution, as recognized by Yomo (‘221) {[0002] lines 11 (multi-radar system), 13-16 (secure a sufficient area of crossing of beams by synchronizing adjacent radars with each other, thus making it possible to effectively widen the detection region); [0004] lines 2-4 (achieve a balance between improved target detection performance and enhanced resolution); [0005] lines 5-6 (a monostatic radar mode and a bistatic radar mode)}.
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Ludlo (‘741) does not explicitly disclose “the detection unit is adapted to determine an I-channel and a Q-channel based on the received radiofrequency signal and to perform the passive Doppler sensing based on the I-channel and the Q-channel”. In the same field of endeavor, Yomo (‘221) discloses that in the detection system,
the detection unit is adapted to determine an I-channel and a Q-channel based on the received radiofrequency signal and to perform the passive Doppler sensing based on the I-channel and the Q-channel { Fig.11 items 814-1 814-2, 815-1, 815-2; Fig.13 for “I-channel and a Q-channel”; [0057] lines 1-7 (polar coordinate-orthogonal coordinate transformer 233 transforms, into orthogonal coordinates, the positional information and line-of-sight velocity information of the memory 214 of the radar A 101. The memory 235 stores the positional information and velocity vector obtained by bistatic radar processing of the radar A 101 as transformed into orthogonal coordinates.); [0078] lines 9-12 (the multi-radar system 100 including the radars A 101 and B 102 and the target Tare moving relative to each other, Doppler frequency shifts of the target T as detected in the bistatic mode match between the radars A 101 and B 102;); [0128] lines 1-3 (The orthogonal code superimposer 816-1 includes an orthogonal code A superimposer 814-1 and an orthogonal code B superimposer 815-1.); [0138] lines 5-8 (after STFT performed by the STFT units 817-1, 818-1, 817-2, and 818-2 correspond to Doppler frequency shifts caused by the target T relatively moving, relative velocities can be calculated.)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ludlo (‘741) with the teachings of Yomo (‘221) {transform detected signal into orthogonal coordinates (e.g. I- and Q-channel) and detect motion of target based on the detected signal in the orthogonal coordinates} to transform detected signal into orthogonal coordinates (e.g. I- and Q-channel) and detect motion of target based on the detected signal in the orthogonal coordinates. Doing so would improve signal-to-noise ratio by synchronizing the target detection results obtained by multi-radar system and secure a sufficient area of crossing of beams by synchronizing adjacent radars with each other, thus making it possible to effectively widen the detection region by using a monostatic radar mode and a bistatic radar mode so as to achieve a balance between improved target detection performance and enhanced resolution, as recognized by Yomo (‘221) {[0002] lines 11 (multi-radar system), 13-16 (secure a sufficient area of crossing of beams by synchronizing adjacent radars with each other, thus making it possible to effectively widen the detection region); [0004] lines 2-4 (achieve a balance between improved target detection performance and enhanced resolution); [0005] lines 5-6 (a monostatic radar mode and a bistatic radar mode); [0044] lines 1-4 (the signal-to-noise ratio can be improved by synthesizing the target detection results obtained by the radars A 101 and B 102 operating as bistatic radars)}.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Ludlo (‘741) and Yomo (‘221) discloses that in the detection system,
the control unit { see Ludlo (‘741) [0069] line 21 (the system further including control means)} is further adapted to control the sending device to send an additional radiofrequency signal with a signal frequency different from the sending signal frequency and to control the receiving device to receive an additional radiofrequency signal resulting from the reflection of the additional radiofrequency signal from the subject { see Ludlo (‘741) Fig.6(a)(b)} and
wherein the detection unit is adapted to perform the passive Doppler sensing further based on the additional received radiofrequency signal { see Ludlo (‘741) [0038] lines 1-7 (With reference to FIGS. 1(a) and 1(b), the instantaneous Doppler frequency of the scattered multipath signal 16B created as the target 24 moves through the detection Zone 22 of a FS radar system is determined by the targets speed, V, the wavelength, λ, of the continuous wave signal used in the system, the angles from transmitter to target, αh(t), and from receiver to target, βh(t), and the baseline crossing angle φ:
PNG
media_image1.png
38
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
}.
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claims 1 and 5, the combination of Ludlo (‘741) and Yomo (‘221) discloses that in the detection system,
the detection unit is adapted to perform the passive Doppler sensing further based on the additional received radiofrequency signal by comparing the additional received radiofrequency signal with the received radiofrequency signal { see Ludlo (‘741) Fig.6(a)(b); Fig.7 item 70 and 70’ (cross-correlation of f1, f2 signals)}.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 1, the combination of Ludlo (‘741) and Yomo (‘221) discloses that in the detection system,
a result of the motion detection is used for controlling a functionality of the at least two devices {see Ludlo (‘741) Fig.1(a)(b); [0040] lines 1-2 (for objects moving at higher speeds,), 6-7 (switch more quickly between the transmit and receive modes.); [0041] lines 1 (detecting human intruders), 5-9 (required for each channel (i.e. in each of the alternate operating states of the system 10), meaning that the respective transceivers 20 at each side of the link have to switch between transmit and receive modes approximately every 0.65 ms) }.
Regarding claim 13, as modified above, Ludlo (‘741) discloses that A detection method { [0014] lines 1-2 (an intruder detection method)} for detecting motion of a subject by utilizing at least two devices adapted to send and receive radiofrequency signals, the detection method comprising:
controlling the at least two devices such that at least one of the at least two devices is a sending device sending a radiofrequency signal with a sending signal frequency and such that at least one of the at least two devices is a receiving device receiving a radiofrequency signal that is indicative of reflections of the sent radiofrequency signal of the subject,
providing the sending signal frequency with which the radiofrequency signal has been sent, and
detecting motion of the subject by performing a passive Doppler sensing based on the received radiofrequency signal and the provided sending signal frequency,
determining an excitation in a frequency range in a spectrum of the received radiofrequency signal, wherein the excitation is substantially constant over a predetermined time period,
performing the passive Doppler sensing based on the received radiofrequency signal by filtering out the frequency range in the spectrum of the received radiofrequency signal, and
performing radiofrequency sensing based on the amplitude of the received radiofrequency signal, wherein the passive Doppler sensing is performed in addition to the radiofrequency sensing based on a sensing result determined for at least one of the at least two devices and based on a device state of at least one of the at least two devices.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
Regarding claim 14, as modified above, Ludlo (‘741) discloses that A non-transitory computer program code to perform the method of claim 13 when run on a processor {[0031] lines 11-15 (The processor 30 may comprise a suitably programmed microprocessor, microcontroller or other digital signal processing (DSP) device. The processor 30 is configured to detect the presence of an intruder in the detection Zone 22); [0044] lines 5-6 (the processor 30 is programmed to implement one or more pattern recognition algorithm); see the rejections of claim 13.}.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludlo (‘741) and Yomo (‘221) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Shpater (US 2015/0212205, hereafter Shpater).
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claims 1 and 5-6, Ludlo (‘741) and Yomo (‘221) do not explicitly disclose “the comparison refers to a subtraction of the additional received radiofrequency signal from the received radiofrequency signal in the frequency domain, wherein the detection unit is adapted to detect motion based on a signal resulting from the subtraction”. In the same field of endeavor, Shpater (‘205) discloses that in the detection system,
the comparison refers to a subtraction of the additional received radiofrequency signal from the received radiofrequency signal in the frequency domain, wherein the detection unit is adapted to detect motion based on a signal resulting from the subtraction { Fig.1 item 17; [0043] lines 1-2 (transmitting of two frequencies F1, F2, and receiving 2 Doppler signals; [0051] lines 8-10 (Doppler detector 15 along with the sampling circuits 16a and 16b can be configured to handle different frequency Doppler signals.)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Ludlo (‘741) and Yomo (‘221) with the teachings of Shpater (‘205) {compare detected results from two different frequencies using subtraction operator} to compare detected results from two different frequencies using subtraction operator. Doing so would use a simpler, more effective and accurate method in Doppler microwave frequency motion detector so as to eliminate typical problems related to low SNR signals and to multi-path transmitted-received signals, as recognized by Shpater (‘205) {[0005] lines 2-3 (a moving object detected using a Doppler microwave frequency motion detector), 6-8 (using a simpler, more effective and accurate method more suitable also to low level and multipath signals obtained typically in dosed environments); [0007] lines 2-5 (a differential signal of at least two Doppler shifted signals generated from at least two different transmitted frequencies of a microwave Doppler transceiver), 8-9 (eliminates typical problems related to low SNR signals and to multi-path transmitted-received signals)}.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claims 1 and 5-6, Ludlo (‘741) and Yomo (‘221) do not explicitly disclose “the comparison refers to performing a Doppler analysis on both the additional received radiofrequency signal and the received radiofrequency signal independent of each other and to comparing the results of the Doppler analysis with respect to consistency”. In the same field of endeavor, Shpater (‘205) discloses that in the detection system,
the comparison refers to performing a Doppler analysis on both the additional received radiofrequency signal and the received radiofrequency signal independent of each other and to comparing the results of the Doppler analysis with respect to consistency { Fig.1 item 17; Fig.4 for “consistency”; [0020] lines 1-11 (setting the transmitted frequency difference such that at desired maximal detection range, the phase shift between Doppler 1 and Doppler 2 is 180 degrees, and by detecting the differential Doppler signal or RMS level of the differential signal, then the signal level at close ranges is reduced, therefore, with comparison to a single channel threshold level signal detection, a higher signal is required and the “effective threshold level for closer objects increases according to closeness to the unit, and thus an improved filtering out of close Small object movement (Such as close Small animal movement) is obtained.); [0043] lines 1-2 (transmitting of two frequencies F1, F2, and receiving 2 Doppler signals; [0051] lines 8-10 (Doppler detector 15 along with the sampling circuits 16a and 16b can be configured to handle different frequency Doppler signals.); [0054] lines 1-2 (The sum and difference power level values approach the same value); Examiner’s note: [0054] lines 1-2 is for the claimed language “with respect to consistency”}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Ludlo (‘741) and Yomo (‘221) with the teachings of Shpater (‘205) {compare detected results from two different frequencies} to compare detected results from two different frequencies. Doing so would use a simpler, more effective and accurate method (e.g. subtraction, sum) in Doppler microwave frequency motion detector so as to eliminate typical problems related to low SNR signals and to multi-path transmitted-received signals, as recognized by Shpater (‘205) {[0005] lines 2-3 (a moving object detected using a Doppler microwave frequency motion detector), 6-8 (using a simpler, more effective and accurate method more suitable also to low level and multipath signals obtained typically in dosed environments); [0007] lines 2-5 (a differential signal of at least two Doppler shifted signals generated from at least two different transmitted frequencies of a microwave Doppler transceiver), 8-9 (eliminates typical problems related to low SNR signals and to multi-path transmitted-received signals)}.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludlo (‘741) and Yomo (‘221) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Buehler et al. (US 5,173,704 , hereafter Buehler).
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Ludlo (‘741) discloses that in the detection system,
wherein the control unit is adapted to control each pair of devices such that each pair of devices comprises at least a sending and a receiving device { [0069] lines 21-23 (the system further including control means configured to cause one node of the pair to operate in the transmit mode while the other node of the pair operates in the receive mode)},
wherein the control unit is further adapted to control the sending and receiving devices such that a radiofrequency signal of a different frequency is used by the two pairs of devices for passive Doppler sensing { Fig.6(a)(b)},
wherein the detection unit is adapted to perform the passive Doppler sensing for each pair of devices independently and to further detect a motion based on a comparison of resulting detection results { Fig.7 item 70 and 70’ (cross-correlation of f1 , f2 signals), independent node 1 processor and node 2 processor}.
However, Ludlo (‘741) and Yomo (‘221) do not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “two pairs of devices are utilized for detecting motion”. In the same field of endeavor, Buehler (‘704) discloses that
two pairs of devices are utilized for detecting motion {Fig.5},
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the combination of Ludlo (‘741) and Yomo (‘221) with the teachings of Buehler (‘704) {use a plurality of bi-static radar system} to use a plurality of bi-static radar system. Doing so would deploy the bi-static radar system as an electronic fence so as to protect an area (e.g. a military base or other area) that must be secured, as recognized by Buehler (‘704) {col.2 lines 23-24 (a plurality of bi-static radar systems deployed as an electronic fence); col.5 lines 36-38 (provide an "electronic fence", to protect a military base or other area that must be secured)}.
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claims 1 and 10, the combination of Ludlo (‘741), Yomo (‘221), and Buehler (‘704) discloses that in the detection system,
the detected motion refers to minute movements or vibration of the subject {see Ludlo (‘741) [0041] line 1 (detecting human intruders)}.
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 YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648