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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/26 regarding the 112(f) rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the 112(f) rejections are no longer valid as the means for language has been replaced. The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the terms “means for processing” and “means for communicating” are still in the claims and still being interpreted as 35 USC 112(f).
The newly amended claims have created new issues that require new 112(b) rejections. The new rejections are detailed below.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/26 regarding the 102 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the sensor in Fornell only monitors a small area in a room (mainly a crib) and therefore does not read on the claim amendments. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim is silent as to how much of the room is monitored. Further the claims require that the sensor observes a person in a monitored area, but then says that the sensor tracks movement in a room. As detailed below in the 112(b) rejection, the newly amended claims are vague and unclear. It is noted that the system of Fornell monitors the movement of the monitored person and then tracks and analyzes physiological characteristics of the person, thereby meeting the claim limitations. It is noted that the crib of Fornell is located within a room and therefore detecting movement in a crib meets the limitation of determining movement within a room. Therefore, the rejections of Fornell stand.
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, 10-20 and 22-27 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 recites the limitation "a sensor for observing … movement … in a monitored area" in lines 1-2. Claim 1 further recites, the sensor is configured to track movement … in a room” in line 12. This is vague as it is unclear if the monitored area is a room, or a separate and distinct area.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the monitoring system" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-8 and 10-13 are rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies as claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "a radar sensor" in line 2. This is vague as it is unclear if this is the same radar sensor as “a radar-based sensor” in claim 1.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "observing … movement … in a monitored area… wherein a sensor is used in the method" in lines 1-2. Claim 1 further recites, the sensor is configured to track movement … in a room” in lines 13-14” This is vague as it is unclear if the monitored area is a room, or a separate and distinct area.
Claim 14 recites the limitation a monitoring system in line 10. This is vague as it is unclear if this is the same or different monitoring system from line 6 of claim 14.
Claims 15-20 and 22-27 are rejected for inheriting the same deficiencies as claim 14.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "a system" in line 2. This is vague as it is unclear if this is the same “a system” as the “a monitoring system” in claim 14.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for processing”; means for communicating” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fornell (U.S. Pub. 2020/0397349).
Regarding claim 1, Fornell discloses a sensor (e.g. 2) for observing the presence, location, movement and/or attitude of a person in a monitored area (e.g. ¶63), wherein the sensor means for processing the measurement signal of the sensor (e.g. 2216); and means for communicating measurement results and/or data relating to the measurement results for further processing (e.g. 2246), wherein, the sensor (e.g. 2) is a radar-based sensor (e.g. ¶¶14, 70) configured to detect persons in the monitored area, and to measure and detect movement (e.g. ¶59), the sensor comprises a first operating mode and a second operating mode, wherein, in the first operating mode the sensor is configured to track movement of the monitored person (e.g. ¶¶16, 53), and wherein in the second operating mode the sensor is configured to measure and/or further analyse measurements relating to a part of the monitored area, in which movement of a person was observed in the first operating mode in order to observe the status of the person (e.g. ¶¶18, 53), and to determine at least one of the following states of the person: breaks or interruptions with breathing of the monitored person (e.g. ¶63); and/or immobility of the monitored person (e.g. ¶63), and wherein the sensor and/or the monitoring system is configured to provide an alarm based on the determined state of the person (e.g. ¶51).
Regarding claim 2, Fornell discloses the sensor, according to claim 1, wherein the alarm is a local alarm comprising at least one of the following: an audible alarm, headphones or a hearing aid device, a visual alarm, and/or an alarm causing vibrations to the bed, mattress and/or to the monitored person, and/or wherein the local alarm is an alarm on a wearable device, wherein the alarm is vibrating on the wearable device and/or an electric shock is caused by the wearable device (e.g. ¶51).
Regarding claim 3, Fornell further discloses wherein the sensor is configured to recognize breaks or interruptions in the person's breathing, in such a way that if no movement of the person, caused by breathing, is determined over a predefined duration, this is recognized as a break or interruption with breathing (e.g. ¶63).
Regarding claim 4, Fornell further discloses wherein the sensor and/or the system is configured to recognize immobility of the person in such a way that if no movement of the person is determined for a predetermined duration, the person is determined to be immobile (e.g. ¶23).
Regarding claim 5, Fornell further discloses wherein the sensor and/or the system is configured to provide the local alarm until the person is determined to have moved, woken up and/or to have started to breathe again (e.g. ¶¶51, 83).
Regarding claim 6, Fornell further discloses wherein the sensor and/or the system is configured to provide a remote alarm based on the determined state of the person, by sending a message or alarm to a remote system and/or to a mobile device (e.g. ¶¶51, 83).
Regarding claim 7, Fornell further discloses wherein the remote alarm is provided, if the person does not respond to the local alarm (e.g. ¶99).
Regarding claim 8, Fornell further discloses wherein the sensor is arranged on a stand, floor, ceiling or wall of a room in a home- environment or a hospital environment (e.g. ¶52).
Regarding claim 10, Fornell further discloses wherein in the second operating mode, the sensor is configured to analyse the measurement signal in such a way that the phase of the measurement signal is determined in order to observe movement of the person (e.g. ¶77).
Regarding claim 11, Fornell further discloses wherein the sensor is a radar sensor configured to observe the elevation, azimuth, movement and/or distance of objects (e.g. ¶¶4, 70).
Regarding claim 12, Fornell further discloses wherein the sensor comprises a means for detecting the orientation of the sensor, and the sensor is configured to take the detected orientation of the sensor into account when determining measurement results for the monitored person (e.g. ¶145).
Regarding claim 13, Fornell further discloses wherein the sensor is configured to determine sleep quality of the monitored person at least in part, based on monitored breathing frequency and/or the amount of body movement of the monitored person (e.g. ¶¶53-54).
Regarding claim 14, Fornell discloses a method for observing the presence, location, movement and/or attitude of a person in a monitored area, wherein a sensor (e.g. 2) is used in the method, which comprises a means for processing the measurement signal of the sensor (e.g. 2216) and a means for communicating measurement results and/or data relating to the measurement results for further processing (e.g. 2246), wherein the sensor is a radar-based sensor (e.g. ¶¶14, 70), the method comprising the steps of: the sensor or a monitoring system connected to the sensor detecting the persons in the monitored area and measuring and detecting movement (e.g. ¶59); the sensor determining at least one of the following states of the person: breaks or interruptions with breathing of the monitored person (e.g. ¶63); and the sensor and/or a monitoring system providing an alarm based on the determined state of the person (e.g. ¶51), wherein the sensor comprises a first operating mode and a second operating mode, wherein in the first operating mode the sensor tracks movement of the monitored person in a room (e.g. ¶¶16, 53) and wherein in the second operating mode the sensor measures and/or further analyses measurements relating to a part of the monitored area, in which movement of a person was observed in the first operating mode in order to observe the status of the person (e.g. ¶¶18, 53).
Regarding claim 15, Fornell further discloses wherein the alarm is a local alarm comprising at least one of the following: an audible alarm, a visual alarm, and/or an alarm causing vibrations to the bed, mattress and/or to the monitored person, and/or wherein the local alarm is an alarm on a wearable device, wherein the alarm is vibrating on the wearable device and/or an electric shock is caused by the wearable device (e.g. ¶51).
Regarding claim 16, Fornell further discloses wherein the sensor recognizes breaks or interruptions in the person's breathing, in such a way that if no movement of the person caused by breathing is determined over a predefined duration, this is recognized as a break or interruption with breathing (e.g. ¶63).
Regarding claim 17, Fornell further discloses wherein the sensor and/or the system recognizes immobility of the person in such a way that if no movement of the person is determined for a predetermined duration, the person is determined to be immobile (e.g. ¶23).
Regarding claim 18, Fornell further discloses wherein the local alarm is provided until the person is moving, waking up and/or starts to breathe again (e.g. ¶¶51, 83).
Regarding claim 19, Fornell further discloses wherein the sensor and/or a system provides a remote alarm based on the determined state of the person, by sending a message or alarm to a remote system and/or to a mobile device (e.g. ¶¶51, 83).
Regarding claim 20, Fornell further discloses wherein the remote alarm is provided if the person does not respond to the local alarm (e.g. ¶99).
Regarding claim 22, Fornell further discloses wherein in the second operating mode the sensor analyses the measurement signal in such a way that the phase of the measurement signal is determined in order to observe movement of the person (e.g. ¶77).
Regarding claim 23, Fornell further discloses wherein the sensor comprises a means for detecting the orientation of the sensor, and the sensor the detected orientation of the sensor into account when determining measurement results for the monitored person (e.g. ¶145).
Regarding claim 24, Fornell further discloses wherein the sensor determines sleep quality of the monitored person at least in part based on monitored breathing frequency and/or the amount of body movement of the monitored person (e.g. ¶¶53-54).
Regarding claim 25, Fornell further a system for observing the presence, location, movement and/or attitude of one or more objects in a monitored area, wherein the system comprises at least one sensor according to claim 1 and wherein the sensor or sensors are fitted in the monitored area (e.g. ¶52).
Regarding claim 26, Fornell further wherein the system is configured to provide the local alarm and/or the remote alarm (e.g. ¶51).
Regarding claim 27, Fornell further wherein the sensor is arranged beside or above a bed so that the measurement area of the sensor covers at least a part of the bed and/or a person lying on the bed, and the sensor is arranged to monitor a person on the bed (e.g. ¶52).
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 REX R HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-8827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/REX R HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796