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 .
Examiner’s Note
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.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 27 January, 2026 is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claim rejection under 35 USC 101 has been overcome in view of the amendment to the claim(s).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed 27 January, 2026 has been fully considered but is moot in view of a new ground of rejection. However, the Examiner would like to note the following argument(s):
Applicant’s argument:
“It is not clear how or why the LIDAR in Yang, which detects "heart rate, movement, or respiration of the person 5," would or could be combined with the occupancy sensor in Ghungrudkar, and without the benefit of Applicant's own disclosure, to track entry and exit of people via an entry point of an area […] In addition, the LIDAR in Yang tracks completely different features (e.g., heart rate, movement, or respiration of a person) than the occupancy sensor disclosed in Ghungrudkar.”
Examiner’s response:
With respect to Applicant’s argument that Yang tracks completely different features than the occupancy sensor discloses in Ghungrudkar, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Yang teaches the use of ultra wideband radar transmitting wideband signals and receiving signals reflected from objects and person thereby recognizing the surrounding situation. Evidently, Yang teaches that the sensor unit may sense the number of persons located in the indoor space [0044]. The system in Yang thus would sense the presence of a person in the indoor space.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/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 6 recites “wherein the second sensor include an ultra-wide band radar that captures radar data of the area” which renders the claim indefinite, because in claim 1, which claim 6 depends on, it was recited that the second sensor is “of a sensor type other than a sensor using depth sensing technology”.
Claim 15 is rejected for similar reason(s) as claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-11, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghungrudkar et al. (US 2024/0192650 A1 previously cited “GHUNGRUDKAR”), in view of Steiner (US 2020/0082551 A1 newly cited “STEINER”).
Regarding claim 1, GHUNGRUDKAR discloses (Examiner’s note: What GHUNGRUDKAR does not disclose is ) a computer-implemented method for obtaining an occupancy count of an area, comprising:
obtaining, based on first data from a first sensor method 26 includes monitoring an occupancy count of the space of the building from each of a plurality of occupancy sensors, as indicated at block 28 [0031])
obtaining, based on second data captured by a second sensor of a sensor type other than a sensor using depth sensing technology (the system 10 may include more than three occupancy sensors 18. The system 10 may include just one or two occupancy sensors 18. At least some of the occupancy sensors 18 may be of a different type of occupancy sensor [0018]); (the occupancy sensors 18 may include an access card reader, motion sensors such as but not limited to PIR (passive infrared) sensors, carbon dioxide sensors [0019]), a second count of people in the area at the time instance (method 26 includes monitoring an occupancy count of the space of the building from each of a plurality of occupancy sensors, as indicated at block 28 [0031])
and computing the occupancy count of the area at the time instance as a sum of the first count having a first weight applied and the second count having a second weight applied (for a particular space, the occupancy sensor 42 a is reporting a total of 30 people, the occupancy sensor 42 b is reporting a total of 33 people, the occupancy sensor 42 c is reporting a total of 30 people, the occupancy sensor 42 d is reporting a total of 23 people and the occupancy sensor 42 e is reporting a total of 22 people. The logic block 44 determines a weighted average of those values, and is reporting an effective occupancy 46 of 30 people [0046])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, STEINER teaches that the occupant counting sensor 190 may comprise a radar sensing device that utilizes a transmitting antenna array (e.g., a phased array) and/or a receiving antenna array (e.g., a phased array) to record radar images of the entry location. The images generated by these detection circuits may be processed to determine the location and/or movement of an occupant in an area of the room 102 in order to determine whether the occupant has entered or exited the room 102 [0044]. The system controller 110 may be capable of resolving mismatches between information reported by the occupant counting sensors and information gathered from other devices in the load control system 100 [0051]. The occupant counting sensor 190 may be capable of resolving mismatches among various pieces of information received or derived by the occupant counting sensor 190 [0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of GHUNGRUDKAR to include the teachings of STEINER, because doing so would improve accuracy of occupancy detection while maintaining privacy and being cost-effective, as recognized by STEINER.
Regarding claim 2, GHUNGRUDKAR/ STEINER discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the first weight based on a first accuracy of the first sensor in the area; and determining the second weight based on a second accuracy of the second sensor in the area (occupancy sensors 42 that are relatively more accurate will be assigned a relatively higher weight while occupancy sensors 42 that are relatively less accurate will be assigned a relatively lower weight [GHUNGRUDKAR 0045]).
Regarding claim 8, GHUNGRUDKAR/ STEINER discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising providing the occupancy count to an automation system (the BMS 12 may represent a Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system, a security system, a lighting system, a fire system, a water system, an energy distribution system and/or any other building control system [GHUNGRUDKAR 0017]); (the controller 16 may be configured to control the BMS 12 based at least in part on the estimated occupancy count [GHUNGRUDKAR 0022]).
Regarding claim 9, GHUNGRUDKAR/ STEINER discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising providing the occupancy count to an emergency services system (the BMS 12 may represent a Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system, a security system, a lighting system, a fire system, a water system, an energy distribution system and/or any other building control system [GHUNGRUDKAR 0017]); (the controller 16 may be configured to control the BMS 12 based at least in part on the estimated occupancy count [GHUNGRUDKAR 0022]).
Regarding claim 10, GHUNGRUDKAR discloses an apparatus, comprising: one or more memories configured to store instructions; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the one or more memories (a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions that when executed by one or more processors [0006]), wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
obtain, based on first data from a first sensor method 26 includes monitoring an occupancy count of the space of the building from each of a plurality of occupancy sensors, as indicated at block 28 [0031])
obtain, based on second data captured by a second sensor of a sensor type other than a sensor using depth sensing technology (the system 10 may include more than three occupancy sensors 18. The system 10 may include just one or two occupancy sensors 18. At least some of the occupancy sensors 18 may be of a different type of occupancy sensor [0018]); (the occupancy sensors 18 may include an access card reader, motion sensors such as but not limited to PIR (passive infrared) sensors, carbon dioxide sensors [0019]), a second count of people in the area at the time instance (method 26 includes monitoring an occupancy count of the space of the building from each of a plurality of occupancy sensors, as indicated at block 28 [0031])
and compute an occupancy count of the area at the time instance as a sum of the first count having a first weight applied and the second count having a second weight applied (for a particular space, the occupancy sensor 42 a is reporting a total of 30 people, the occupancy sensor 42 b is reporting a total of 33 people, the occupancy sensor 42 c is reporting a total of 30 people, the occupancy sensor 42 d is reporting a total of 23 people and the occupancy sensor 42 e is reporting a total of 22 people. The logic block 44 determines a weighted average of those values, and is reporting an effective occupancy 46 of 30 people [0046])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, STEINER teaches that the occupant counting sensor 190 may comprise a radar sensing device that utilizes a transmitting antenna array (e.g., a phased array) and/or a receiving antenna array (e.g., a phased array) to record radar images of the entry location. The images generated by these detection circuits may be processed to determine the location and/or movement of an occupant in an area of the room 102 in order to determine whether the occupant has entered or exited the room 102 [0044]. The system controller 110 may be capable of resolving mismatches between information reported by the occupant counting sensors and information gathered from other devices in the load control system 100 [0051]. The occupant counting sensor 190 may be capable of resolving mismatches among various pieces of information received or derived by the occupant counting sensor 190 [0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of GHUNGRUDKAR to include the teachings of STEINER, because doing so would improve accuracy of occupancy detection while maintaining privacy and being cost-effective, as recognized by STEINER.
Claim 11 corresponds to claim 2 sufficiently in scope and therefore is similarly rejected.
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 8 sufficiently in scope and therefore is similarly rejected.
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 9 sufficiently in scope and therefore is similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 19, GHUNGRUDKAR discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions, executable by one or more processors (a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon instructions that when executed by one or more processors [0006]), for obtaining an occupancy count of an area, the instructions comprising instructions for:
obtaining, based on first data from a first sensor method 26 includes monitoring an occupancy count of the space of the building from each of a plurality of occupancy sensors, as indicated at block 28 [0031])
obtaining, based on second data captured by a second sensor of a sensor type other than a sensor using depth sensing technology (the system 10 may include more than three occupancy sensors 18. The system 10 may include just one or two occupancy sensors 18. At least some of the occupancy sensors 18 may be of a different type of occupancy sensor [0018]); (the occupancy sensors 18 may include an access card reader, motion sensors such as but not limited to PIR (passive infrared) sensors, carbon dioxide sensors [0019]), a second count of people in the area at the time instance (method 26 includes monitoring an occupancy count of the space of the building from each of a plurality of occupancy sensors, as indicated at block 28 [0031])
and computing the occupancy count of the area at the time instance as a sum of the first count having a first weight applied and the second count having a second weight applied (for a particular space, the occupancy sensor 42 a is reporting a total of 30 people, the occupancy sensor 42 b is reporting a total of 33 people, the occupancy sensor 42 c is reporting a total of 30 people, the occupancy sensor 42 d is reporting a total of 23 people and the occupancy sensor 42 e is reporting a total of 22 people. The logic block 44 determines a weighted average of those values, and is reporting an effective occupancy 46 of 30 people [0046])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, STEINER teaches that the occupant counting sensor 190 may comprise a radar sensing device that utilizes a transmitting antenna array (e.g., a phased array) and/or a receiving antenna array (e.g., a phased array) to record radar images of the entry location. The images generated by these detection circuits may be processed to determine the location and/or movement of an occupant in an area of the room 102 in order to determine whether the occupant has entered or exited the room 102 [0044]. The system controller 110 may be capable of resolving mismatches between information reported by the occupant counting sensors and information gathered from other devices in the load control system 100 [0051]. The occupant counting sensor 190 may be capable of resolving mismatches among various pieces of information received or derived by the occupant counting sensor 190 [0053].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of GHUNGRUDKAR to include the teachings of STEINER, because doing so would improve accuracy of occupancy detection while maintaining privacy and being cost-effective, as recognized by STEINER.
Claim 20 corresponds to claim 2 sufficiently in scope and therefore is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 3, 12, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GHUNGRUDKAR, in view of STEINER, and further in view of Raykov et al. (US 2017/0364817 A1 previously cited “RAYKOV”).
Regarding claim 3, GHUNGRUDKAR/ STEINER discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the second sensor includes a thermal sensor that captures thermal images of the area (the occupancy sensors 18 may include PIR (passive infrared) sensors [GHUNGRUDKAR 0019], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1), the controller 16 may be considered as including a model 20. The model 20 may be a trained model, for example, and may be configured to receive inputs from the various occupancy sensors 18 and to determine an estimated current occupancy of a space based at least on the inputs from the various occupancy sensors 18 [0020].
In a same or similar field of endeavor, RAYKOV teaches that a system 10 for detecting the number of occupants in a region. The system includes a passive infrared sensor 12, processing circuitry 14 and data storage circuitry 16. The data storage 16 stores model defining data 18 defining one or more regression models 20 and a clustering model 22 used to estimate the number of occupants in the region [0061]. A machine learning model can be trained on collections of PIR data from both occupied and unoccupied regions. Clusters of motion which are detected in both regions describe more typical PIR data dynamics, where clusters of motion detected only in occupied regions are more likely to be specific to the monitored human behaviour [0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of GHUNGRUDKAR to include the teachings of RAYKOV, because doing so would improve occupant detection while still allowing for much lower cost than alternative techniques using a network of multiple sensors tracking entry/exit points of the region, as recognized by GHUNGRUDKAR.
Claim 12 corresponds to claim 3 sufficiently in scope and therefore is similarly rejected.
Claim 21 corresponds to claim 3 sufficiently in scope and therefore is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 4-5, 13-14, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GHUNGRUDKAR, in view of STEINER, and RAYKOV, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2020/0125041 A1 previously cited “YANG”).
Regarding claim 4, GHUNGRUDKAR/ STEINER / RAYKOV discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising capturing, by an the occupant counting sensor 190 may comprise a radar sensing device that utilizes a transmitting antenna array (e.g., a phased array) and/or a receiving antenna array (e.g., a phased array) to record radar images of the entry location. The images generated by these detection circuits may be processed to determine the location and/or movement of an occupant in an area of the room 102 in order to determine whether the occupant has entered or exited the room 102 [STEINER 0044], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, YANG teaches that the sensor unit 100 may be any one of an impulse-radio ultra wideband communication (IR-UWB) sensor, a Lidar, a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar, and a Doppler radar [0042]. The sensor unit 100 may receive the reflected signal in real time and sense the movement of the person 5. Also, the sensor unit 100 may sense the number of persons 5 located in the indoor space [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of GHUNGRUDKAR to include the teachings of YANG, because the UWB has the advantage of sensing minute movements of an object because of ultra-precise distance resolution characteristics of 1 cm or less, as recognized by YANG.
Regarding claim 5, GHUNGRUDKAR/ STEINER / RAYKOV discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising obtaining, based on data captured by an the estimated occupancy count is based at least in part on the assigned weight of each of the plurality of occupancy sensors, as indicated at block 34b [GHUNGRUDKAR 0032], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
In a same or similar field of endeavor, YANG teaches that the sensor unit 100 may be any one of an impulse-radio ultra wideband communication (IR-UWB) sensor, a Lidar, a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar, and a Doppler radar [0042]. The sensor unit 100 may receive the reflected signal in real time and sense the movement of the person 5. Also, the sensor unit 100 may sense the number of persons 5 located in the indoor space [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of GHUNGRUDKAR to include the teachings of YANG, because the UWB has the advantage of sensing minute movements of an object because of ultra-precise distance resolution characteristics of 1 cm or less, as recognized by YANG.
Claim 13 corresponds to claim 4 sufficiently in scope and therefore is similarly rejected.
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 5 sufficiently in scope and therefore is similarly rejected.
Claim 22 corresponds to claim 4 sufficiently in scope and therefore is similarly rejected.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GHUNGRUDKAR, in view of STEINER, and YANG, and further in view of Zoghlami et al. (US 2023/0373092 A1 newly cited “ZOGHLAMI”).
Regarding claim 6, GHUNGRUDKAR/ STEINER discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, YANG teaches that the sensor unit 100 may be any one of an impulse-radio ultra wideband communication (IR-UWB) sensor, a Lidar, a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar, and a Doppler radar [0042]. The sensor unit 100 may receive the reflected signal in real time and sense the movement of the person 5. Also, the sensor unit 100 may sense the number of persons 5 located in the indoor space [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of GHUNGRUDKAR to include the teachings of YANG, because the UWB has the advantage of sensing minute movements of an object because of ultra-precise distance resolution characteristics of 1 cm or less, as recognized by YANG.
GHUNGRUDKAR, as modified by STEINER and YANG, discloses the invention as set forth above, but does not disclose that wherein obtaining the second count of people in the area is based at least in part on detecting, using a trained artificial intelligence model, human outlines in the radar data that is associated with the time instance.
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ZOGHLAMI teaches that the ToF sensor gives information about the shape and the location of an imaged human body or other moving obstacle, yielding two-dimensional greyscale and depth images. Samples of ToF sensor data and radar sensor data obtained in various scenarios may be collected and used to train a neural network to detect peoples' presences in a room as well as their directions of movement and their speeds [0031]. The systems described herein can be placed in any environment like in underground stations and maybe entrance of factories to detect and count humans and also we can extract their behavior in the environment [0044].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of GHUNGRUDKAR to include the teachings of ZOGHLAMI, because doing so would detect distinct feature(s) and improve detection accuracy while maintaining safe environment, as recognized by ZOGHLAMI.
Claim 15 corresponds to claim 6 sufficiently in scope and therefore is similarly rejected.
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 HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 June 13, 2026
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights