DETAILED ACTION
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/07/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on Santra regarding prior art reference Sakimura have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based on Santra, the Applicant purports that secondary reference Klingensmith fails to disclose, “wherein the rotatable object, when rotated by the drive motor assembly and detected by the object counting radar unit, is displayed as a static point of reference on the GUI of the object counting radar unit.” In support of this position the Applicant argues on page 8 of their Remarks, “A fixed, stationary fiducial marker is the conceptual opposite of the claimed rotatable object that, by virtue of its rotation, is detectable by a motion-filtering object counting radar unit and is displayed as a static point of reference” and “Nowhere does Klingensmith disclose or suggest displaying its fiducial marker-much less a rotating object-as a static point of reference on a GUI for calibrating an object counting radar unit.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to prior art reference Klingensmith. Klingensmith discloses that the “image displayed on the UI 190 of the remote controller 10 is a two-dimensional image that corresponds to the three-dimensional point cloud of sensor data 134 (e.g., field of view F.sub.V) for the area within the environment” [0052]. Klingensmith further discloses “The one or more fiducial markers 350 may correspond to an object that is placed within the field of sensing of the robot that the robot may use as a fixed point of reference. The one or more fiducial markers 350 may be any object that the robot 100 is capable of readily recognizing, such as a fixed or stationary object or feature of the environment or an object with a recognizable pattern or feature.” [0058]). Klingensmith discloses displaying a two-dimensional image corresponding to the field of view for the area within the environment. As the fiducial markers are defined as static reference points within the sensing field of view, The Examiner disagrees with the Applicants statement that “nowhere does Klingensmith disclose or suggest displaying its fiducial marker.
With respect to the Applicants statement that “a fixed, stationary fiducial marker is the conceptual opposite of the claimed rotatable object,“ the Examiner points to Klingensmith. As cited above, paragraph [0058] Klingensmith clarifies that the fiducial marker may be any object that the system is capable of readily recognizing. It is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that a stationary but consistently rotating object produces a pattern recognizable by radar detection. Although Klingensmith is not relied upon to disclose a rotating object, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicants sentiment that a fiducial marker teaches away from said rotating object. The Examiner maintains references applied herein, in combination, disclose the above limitation.
The Applicant purports on page 9 of their remarks that “The Office Action's stated rationale for the combination is also deficient.” In support for this position the Applicant argues that as Santra discloses disregarding static objects in the environment, Santra must teach away from using a static object as a calibration reference. Although the current rejection no longer relies upon prior art reference Sakimura, no reference applied herein discloses a purely static object as a calibration reference. As affirmed by the Applicant on page 7 of their remarks, it is well known in the art that corner reflectors may be physically stationary but also comprise a reflecting component that rotates. Rotation is movement detectible by radar systems. In paragraph [0084] Santra discloses in several conditions in which objects in the environment may be disregarded, Including disregarding static object. The term static indicates a total lack of relative movement. Again, Rotation is movement. The Applicant’s above statement disregards cited teachings in the previously applied art.
The Applicant states on page 9 of their arguments that Santra “provides no rationale for displaying a rotating object as a static point of reference on a GUI.” As the primary reference Santra is not replied upon to teach the steps of displaying a rotating object as a static point of reference on a GUI, Santra is not required to provide a rational to incorporate these features. This rational is provided by prior art reference Klingensmith, as Klingensmith is relied upon to teach the above limitation.
The Applicant further purports that the remainder of the Office Action's reasoning consists of the conclusory assertion that using a known technique to improve similar devices is obvious. Such conclusory statements, untethered to the specific claimed combination, are insufficient to establish obviousness.” This statement is unsupported and falsely characterizes the previously filled rejection. By way of example, page 4 of the previously filled rejection provides a rational to modify Santra with the teachings of Klingensmith. This rational explicitly relies upon paragraph [0058] of Klingensmith to demonstrate that an advantage would have been produced by their combination. The Applicant is reminded that MPEP 2144(II) states, “The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination.” Each rational to combine provided in the previously filled office action is explicitly supported by the prior art, which tethers each motivation to the specific claimed combination. The Examiner maintains that the previously provided rationale for combining references is sufficient to establish obviousness.
The Applicant additionally states on page 9 of their remarks that the above combination relies upon impermissible hindsight reasoning. In support of this statement the Applicant again suggests that the prior art teaches away from the claimed subject matter. The Applicant is reminded that it must be recognized that any judgement on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392; 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As stated above, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicants conclusionary statement that the prior art teaches away from the claimed subject matter. The Examiner further maintains that the reconstruction is proper as the art relied upon herein does not include nor rely upon knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santra(US20190317191A1) in view of RAO(CN 108427103 A) and further in view of Klingensmith(US20220390954A1).
Regarding claim 1, Santra discloses, A system comprising: an object counting radar unit configured to count one or more moving objects passing through a field-of- view (“Some embodiments count the number of humans in a given setting at any given time and track each of the humans” [0025] & “a millimeter-wave radar system” [0023])) of the object counting radar unit (FIG.3, Part.302) the object counting radar unit being configured to disregard objects that are not in motion (“peaks associated with non-human behaviors or locations may be discarded or associated with a very low probability […] As another example, if a static object is identified in a location where a known non-movable furniture is located, a low probability (e.g., 0%) may be assigned to that location ” [0084]).
Santra does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein a rotatable target object being rotated by a drive motor assembly. RAO discloses the system comprising, , a rotatable object (“corner reflector for calibrating ground-based radar echo signals” [0002]); and a drive motor assembly configured to rotate the rotatable object (“two motors are used to drive the first rotating shaft 9 and the second rotating shaft 15 to rotate” [0034]), wherein the rotation of rotatable object, while the rotatable object remains at a fixed location (“a base 11 for mounting the adjustment device” [0029]), is detectable by the object counting radar unit when the rotatable object is located in a field- of-view of the object counting radar unit (“the metal plate assembly 1 can refract and amplify electromagnetic waves, thereby enhancing the echo signal. “ [0035]) and is rotated by the drive motor assembly (“two motors are used to drive the first rotating shaft 9 and the second rotating shaft 15 to rotate” [0034]), wherein the rotatable object, when rotated by the drive motor assembly and detected by the object counting radar unit […] for calibrating the object counting radar unit (“corner reflector for calibrating ground-based radar echo signals” [0002]).
RAO teaches in the same field of radar reflectors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santra with the teachings of RAO to incorporate the features of a rotatable object, rotated by a drive assembly and detectable by a radar so as to gain the advantage of improving calibration and enhancing return signals for calibration purposes [0009 & 0035, RAO]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Santra as modified by RAO discloses a static reference point, but does not appear to explicitly disclose a graphical user interface (GUI). Klingensmith discloses, a graphical user interface (GUI) (“display graphical information for a graphical user interface (GUI) on an external input/output device” [0074]) configured to display a representation of the field-of-view of the [..] radar unit (“ the image displayed on the UI 190 may be a two-dimensional image representation that corresponds to the three-dimensional field of view F.sub.V of the one or more sensors 132.” [0052] & “the sensor data may include radar data,” [0061]), […] Object […] is displayed as a static point of reference on the gui of the object counting radar unit (“the graph map 222 includes information related to one or more fiducial markers 350 […] one or more fiducial markers 350 may correspond to an object that is placed within the field of sensing of the robot that the robot may use as a fixed point of reference. “ [0058])
Klingensmith teaches in the same field of sensor image display. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santra as modified by RAO with the teachings of Klingensmith to incorporate the features a GUI configured to display a representation of the field-of-view so as to gain the advantage of improving calibration [0058, Klingensmith]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 13, Santra discloses
A system comprising: one or more processors (“a processor “ [0005]); and one or more memories each coupled with at least one of the one or more processors and each storing all or some portion of instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, (“The bottom portion 920 is devoted to the processing and comparison of new measurements for comparison to stored data. “ [0099]) […] a field-of-view of an object counting radar unit configured to count one or more moving objects passing through the field-of- view of the object counting radar unit (“Some embodiments count the number of humans in a given setting at any given time and track each of the humans” [0025] & “a millimeter-wave radar system” [0023])), the object counting radar unit being configured to disregard objects that are not in motion(“peaks associated with non-human behaviors or locations may be discarded or associated with a very low probability […] As another example, if a static object is identified in a location where a known non-movable furniture is located, a low probability (e.g., 0%) may be assigned to that location ” [0084]).
Santra does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein a rotatable target object being rotated by a drive motor assembly. RAO discloses the system comprising, a static point of reference that represents a rotatable object whose rotation (“corner reflector for calibrating ground-based radar echo signals” [0002]), while the rotatable object remains at a fixed location rotation (“a base 11 for mounting the adjustment device” [0029]) is detected by the object counting radar unit when the rotatable object is located in the field-of-view of the object counting radar unit, (“the metal plate assembly 1 can refract and amplify electromagnetic waves, thereby enhancing the echo signal. “ [0035]) the rotatable object, when rotated by the drive motor assembly (“two motors are used to drive the first rotating shaft 9 and the second rotating shaft 15 to rotate” [0034])and detected by the object counting radar unit, provides the static point of reference […] for calibrating (“corner reflector for calibrating ground-based radar echo signals” [0002]).
RAO teaches in the same field of radar reflectors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santra with the teachings of RAO to incorporate the features of a rotatable object, rotated by a drive assembly and detectable by a radar so as to gain the advantage of improving calibration and enhancing return signals for calibration purposes [0009 & 0035, RAO]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Santra as modified by RAO discloses a static reference point, but does not appear to disclose a GUI. Klingensmith discloses the system wherein, one or more processors, individually or in any combination, to provide a graphical user interface("GUI) on a display (“display graphical
information for a graphical user interface (GUI) on an external input/output device” [0074]) wherein the GUI is configured to display a representation of a field of view of an object counting radar unit (“ the image displayed on the UI 190 may be a two-dimensional image representation that corresponds to the three-dimensional field of view F.sub.V of the one or more sensors 132.” [0052] & “the sensor data may include radar data,” [0061]) […], wherein the GUI is further configured to display a static point of reference […](“the graph map 222 includes information related to one or more fiducial markers 350 […] one or more fiducial markers 350 may correspond to an object that is placed within the field of sensing of the robot that the robot may use as a fixed point of reference. “ [0058]) the static point of reference on the GUI for calibrating the object counting radar unit (“one or more fiducial markers 350 may correspond to an object that is placed within the field of sensing of the robot that the robot may use as a fixed point of reference. “ [0058])
Klingensmith teaches in the same field of sensor image display. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santra as modified by RAO with the teachings of Klingensmith to incorporate the features a GUI configured to display a representation of the field-of-view so as to gain the advantage of improving calibration [0058, Klingensmith]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 17, Santra discloses, A method comprising: receiving data from an object counting radar unit configured to count one or more moving objects located in a field-of-view(“Some embodiments count the number of humans in a given setting at any given time and track each of the humans” [0025] & “a millimeter-wave radar system” [0023])) of the object counting radar unit (FIG.3, Part.302); the object counting radar unit being configured to disregard objects that are not in motion (“peaks associated with non-human behaviors or locations may be discarded or associated with a very low probability […] As another example, if a static object is identified in a location where a known non-movable furniture is located, a low probability (e.g., 0%) may be assigned to that location ” [0084]).
Santra does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein a rotatable target object being rotated by a drive motor assembly. RAO discloses the system comprising
a static point of reference that represents a rotatable object (“corner reflector for calibrating ground-based radar echo signals” [0002]) whose rotation, while the rotatable object remains at a fixed location (“a base 11 for mounting the adjustment device” [0029]), is detected by the object counting radar unit when the rotatable object is located in the field-of-view of the object counting radar unit (“the metal plate assembly 1 can refract and amplify electromagnetic waves, thereby enhancing the echo signal. “ [0035]) and is rotated by a drive motor assembly, wherein the rotatable object, when rotated by the drive motor assembly (“two motors are used to drive the first rotating shaft 9 and the second rotating shaft 15 to rotate” [0034]) and detected by the object counting radar unit, provides a static point of reference […] for calibrating the object counting radar unit (“corner reflector for calibrating ground-based radar echo signals” [0002]).
RAO teaches in the same field of radar reflectors. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santra with the teachings of RAO to incorporate the features of a rotatable object, rotated by a drive assembly and detectable by a radar so as to gain the advantage of improving calibration and enhancing return signals for calibration purposes [0009 & 0035, RAO]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Santra as modified by RAO discloses a static reference point, but does not appear to explicitly disclose a graphical user interface (GUI). Klingensmith discloses, displaying, based on the data, a representation of the field of view of the object counting radar unit (“ the image displayed on the UI 190 may be a two-dimensional image representation that corresponds to the three-dimensional field of view F.sub.V of the one or more sensors 132.” [0052] & “the sensor data may include radar data,” [0061]), on a graphical user interface (GUI) (“display graphical information for a graphical user interface (GUI) on an external input/output device” [0074]), including displaying a static reference point […] provides the static point of reference on the gui for calibrating the object counting radar unit (“the graph map 222 includes information related to one or more fiducial markers 350 […] one or more fiducial markers 350 may correspond to an object that is placed within the field of sensing of the robot that the robot may use as a fixed point of reference. “ [0058]).
Klingensmith teaches in the same field of sensor image display. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santra as modified by RAO with the teachings of Klingensmith to incorporate the features a GUI configured to display a representation of the field-of-view so as to gain the advantage of improving calibration [0058, Klingensmith]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santra(US20190317191A1) as modified by RAO(CN 108427103 A) and Klingensmith (US20220390954A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mihli(US20220365174A1).
Regarding claim 2, Santra as modified by Sakimura and Klingensmith discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Santra as modified by Sakimura and Klingensmith fails to set forth the system of claim 2. Mihli discloses the system wherein, the rotatable object comprises a pinwheel or a fan blade (FIG.2 Part.1).
Mihli teaches in the same field of radar object tracking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith with the teachings of Mihli to incorporate the features of a rotatable object that comprises a pinwheel or a fan blade so as to gain the advantage of increasing the available reflection surface area and angle. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 3, Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith fails to set forth the system of claim 3. Mihli discloses the system comprising, a safety cage that at least partially covers the rotatable object (“enclosed inside the protective structure 12rI” [0054]).
Mihli teaches in the same field of radar object tracking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith with the teachings of Mihli to incorporate the features of a safety cage so as to gain the advantage of protecting the rotatable object. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 4, Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith fails to set forth the system of claim 4. Mihli discloses the system comprising, a stand that supports the rotatable object and the drive motor assembly (“The calibration setup 20 comprises a stationary reference target element 1 (RFT) (e.g., mounted on a post/tripod 18t)” [0065]).
Mihli teaches in the same field of radar object tracking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith with the teachings of Mihli to incorporate the features of a stand that supports the rotatable object so as to gain the advantage of improving the radar visibility to the rotatable object. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 5, Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith fails to set forth the system of claim 5. Mihli discloses the system wherein, a height of the stand is adjustable. (“The target RF antenna (1) can be mounted on an adjustable column/post (e.g., tripod)” [0015])
Mihli teaches in the same field of radar object tracking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith with the teachings of Mihli to incorporate the features of a stand with an adjustable height so as to gain the advantage of improving the reflection range of the rotatable object. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 6, Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith discloses all of the limitations of claim 4. Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith fails to set forth the system of claim 6. Mihli discloses the system wherein, the stand comprises a tripod (“The target RF antenna (1) can be mounted on an adjustable column/post (e.g., tripod)” [0015]).
Mihli teaches in the same field of radar object tracking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith with the teachings of Mihli to incorporate the features of a stand with a tripod so as to gain the advantage of improving the stability rotatable object. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Claims 9-11, 14-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santra(US20190317191A1) as modified by RAO(CN 108427103 A)and Klingensmith (US20220390954A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Armstrong(US20160078264A1)
Regarding claim 9, Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith fails to set forth the system of claim 9. Armstrong discloses the system wherein, the GUI is further configured to display a representation of a portal, an In count line, and an Out count line (“[0029] FIG. 5 is a screenshot diagram of a user interface displaying quantity of goods by style for each zone of a retail store;” [0029])
Armstrong teaches in the same field of radar object tracking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith with the teachings of Armstrong to incorporate the features of displaying a In count line, out count line and portal on a GUI so as to gain the advantage of improving the quality of information provided to the user [0021, Armstrong]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 10, Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith fails to set forth the system of claim 10. Armstrong discloses the system wherein, the In count line and the Out count line are configured for object counting by the object counting radar unit (“ One or more than one zone 308, 310, 312, 314, 316 and 318 can be configured using both the hardware shown in FIG. 1 and the software described in FIG. 2.” [0165]).
Armstrong teaches in the same field of radar object tracking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith with the teachings of Armstrong to incorporate the features of in count line and out count line configured for object counting so as to gain the advantage of improving the quality of information provided to the user [0021, Armstrong]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 11, Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith discloses all of the limitations of claim 9. Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith fails to set forth the system of claim 11. Armstrong discloses the system wherein, representation of the portal comprises a representation of one or more electronic article surveillance “EAS” pedestals (“The system comprises one or more than one electronic product code radio-frequency identification reader, “ [0018]).
Armstrong teaches in the same field of radar object tracking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith with the teachings of Armstrong to incorporate the features EAS pedestals so as to gain the advantage of improving object tracking [0050, Armstrong]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 14, Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith discloses all of the limitations of claim 13. Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith fails to set forth the system of claim 14. Armstrong discloses the system wherein, the GUI is further configured to display a representation of a portal, an In count line, and an Out count line (“[0029] FIG. 5 is a screenshot diagram of a user interface displaying quantity of goods by style for each zone of a retail store;” [0029]), wherein the In count line and the Out count line are configured for object counting by the object counting radar unit (“ One or more than one zone 308, 310, 312, 314, 316 and 318 can be configured using both the hardware shown in FIG. 1 and the software described in FIG. 2.” [0165]).
Armstrong teaches in the same field of radar object tracking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith with the teachings of Armstrong to incorporate the features of in count line and out count line configured for object counting and to display the in/ out count lines and the portal so as to gain the advantage of improving the quality of information provided to the user [0021, Armstrong]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 15, Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith discloses all of the limitations of claim 14. Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith fails to set forth the system of claim 15. Armstrong discloses the system wherein, the representation of the portal comprises a representation of one or more electronic article surveillance (EAS) pedestals (“The system comprises one or more than one electronic product code radio-frequency identification reader, “ [0018]).
Armstrong teaches in the same field of radar object tracking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith with the teachings of Armstrong to incorporate the features EAS pedestals so as to gain the advantage of improving object tracking [0050, Armstrong]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 18, Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith discloses all of the limitations of claim 17. Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith fails to set forth the system of claim 18. Armstrong discloses the method further comprising displaying, on the GUI, a representation of a portal, an In count line, and an Out count line, wherein the In count line and the Out count line are configured for object counting by the object counting radar unit (“[0029] FIG. 5 is a screenshot diagram of a user interface displaying quantity of goods by style for each zone of a retail store;” [0029])
Armstrong teaches in the same field of radar object tracking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith with the teachings of Armstrong to incorporate the features of displaying a In count line, out count line and portal on a GUI so as to gain the advantage of improving the quality of information provided to the user [0021, Armstrong]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 19, Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith discloses all of the limitations of claim 17. Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith fails to set forth the system of claim 19. Armstrong discloses the method wherein, the representation of the portal comprises a representation of one or more electronic article surveillance “EAS” pedestals (“The system comprises one or more than one electronic product code radio-frequency identification reader, “ [0018]).
Armstrong teaches in the same field of radar object tracking. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Santra as modified by RAO and Klingensmith with the teachings of Armstrong to incorporate the features EAS pedestals so as to gain the advantage of improving object tracking [0050, Armstrong]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
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.
Documents Considered but not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s Disclosure.
Buehler(US20050078852A1) is considered analogous art to the instant application as it discloses in [0072] “ One object of the invention is to maintain statistically useful counts of objects within a monitored environment that includes an environment gateway and off-camera regions”
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 CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday ET.
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 on (571) 272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights