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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 13 February, 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a system and a method and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claim(s) 1 and 11:
Claim 1:
A detecting system for movement trajectory, comprising: a display device, displaying a graphical user interface; a radar, transmitting a radar signal to a detection area to receive a corresponding reflected signal; and a processor, coupled to the radar and the display device and configured to: obtain a point cloud according to the reflected signal; generate a movement trajectory based on the point cloud; and display information associated with the movement trajectory through the graphical user interface.
Claim 11:
A detecting method for movement trajectory, comprising: transmitting a radar signal to a detection area to receive a corresponding reflected signal; obtaining a point cloud according to the reflected signal; generating a movement trajectory according to the point cloud; and displaying information associated with the movement trajectory through a graphical user interface.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. Claim 11 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Independent claim(s) 11 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain sufficiently the same limitations as those noted for claim 1 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
“obtain a point cloud according to the reflected signal; generate a movement trajectory based on the point cloud; and display information associated with the movement trajectory through the graphical user interface”.
The focus of the claim (i.e., generate a movement trajectory) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are acts that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, can be practically performed in the human mind using observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion, and/or a general-purpose computer as indicated in Applicant’s disclosure. When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, “generating a movement trajectory” is simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from §101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract idea. See Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a generically-recited analysis step is a mental process).
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Under the 2019 Guidance, concepts performed in the human mind, even with the aid of pen and paper, and concepts merely using a computer as a tool, fall within the “mental processes” grouping. Claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III). Examples of claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No.
The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitation(s) of “a processor” of claim 1 is recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely is used to perform the abstract idea, and is merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further recitation of limitation(s) of “transmitting a radar signal to a detection area to receive a corresponding reflected signal” and “obtain a point cloud according to the reflected signal” are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. Further still, the limitation(s) of “display information associated with the movement trajectory through the graphical user interface” represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1.
The limitation of “a processor” is recited in a manner that is well understood, generic and conventional. The additional recitation of “transmitting a radar signal to a detection area to receive a corresponding reflected signal” and “obtain a point cloud according to the reflected signal” does not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. Further still, the limitation(s) of “display information associated with the movement trajectory through the graphical user interface” is at a high level of generality and is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1 and does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 1 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim(s) 1 and 11 are ineligible.
Claim 2 and similarly claim 12:
The detecting system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: group the point cloud to obtain a plurality of groups; generate a plurality of bounding boxes respectively corresponding to the plurality of groups, and obtain a plurality of centers respectively corresponding to the plurality of bounding boxes; and generate the movement trajectory according to the plurality of centers.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 2 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. Claim 12 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 12 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 2 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 2 and 12 are ineligible.
Claim 3 and similarly claim 13:
The detecting system of claim 2, wherein the plurality of groups comprises a first group and a second group, and the processor is further configured to: obtain a plurality of sampling points during a first time period from the point cloud to obtain the first group; and obtain a plurality of sampling points during a second time period from the point cloud to obtain the second group, wherein the second time period is different from the first time period.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 3 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. Claim 13 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 13 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 3 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 3 and 13 are ineligible.
Claim 4 and similarly claim 14:
The detecting system of claim 3, wherein the first time period and the second time period partially overlap.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 4 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. Claim 14 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 14 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 4 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 4 and 14 are ineligible.
Claim 5 and similarly claim 15:
The detecting system of claim 3, wherein the information comprises a first bounding box corresponding to the first group, and the processor is further configured to: determine a color of the first bounding box according to a distance between the first bounding box and a reference location.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 5 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. Claim 15 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 15 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 5 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 5 and 15 are ineligible.
Claim 6 and similarly claim 16:
The detecting system of claim 3, wherein the information comprises a first bounding box corresponding to the first group, and the processor is further configured to: determine a color of the first bounding box according to a sampling time of a sampling point in the first bounding box.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 6 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. Claim 16 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 16 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 6 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 6 and 16 are ineligible.
Claim 7 and similarly claim 17:
The detecting system of claim 1, wherein the information comprises at least one of the following: a displacement, an instantaneous velocity, an average velocity, an instantaneous acceleration, an average acceleration, a movement offset, and a dwell time.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 7 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. Claim 17 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 17 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 7 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 7 and 17 are ineligible.
Claim 8 and similarly claim 18:
The detecting system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain environmental information of the detection area; and filter a sampling point in the point cloud according to the environmental information to update the point cloud.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 8 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. Claim 18 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 18 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 8 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 8 and 18 are ineligible.
Claim 9 and similarly claim 19:
The detecting system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a first longitudinal displacement signal according to the point cloud; perform a detrending operation, a normalization, and a smoothing on the first longitudinal displacement signal to generate a second longitudinal displacement signal; perform a peak detection on the second longitudinal displacement signal to obtain a plurality of peaks of the second longitudinal displacement signal; and determine a number of times of standing-sitting actions according to the plurality of peaks, wherein the information comprises the number of times of the standing-sitting actions.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 9 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. Claim 19 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 19 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 9 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 9 and 19 are ineligible.
Claim 10 and similarly claim 20:
The detecting system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a first longitudinal velocity signal according to the point cloud; perform a detrending operation, a normalization, and a smoothing on the first longitudinal velocity signal to generate a second longitudinal velocity signal; perform a peak detection on the second longitudinal velocity signal to obtain a plurality of peaks of the second longitudinal velocity signal; and determine a number of times of standing-sitting actions according to the plurality of peaks, wherein the information comprises the number of times of the standing-sitting actions.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 10 recites a system, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. Claim 20 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 20 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same defects as those noted for claim 10 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the system of claim 1 which recites a mental process (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 10 and 20 are ineligible.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-3, 7, 11-13, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coke et al. (US 2019/0108740 A1 “COKE”).
Regarding claim 1, COKE discloses a detecting system for movement trajectory, comprising:
a display device, displaying a graphical user interface (FIG. 8 is a schematic illustration 800 of a system dashboard that may be displayed to caretakers and possibly to a user 810 [0078])
a radar, transmitting a radar signal to a detection area to receive a corresponding reflected signal (an always-on tracking device, embedded into a room (for example, plugged into an AC outlet or other power source) and including one or several ultra-wideband radars, such as frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) radar(s), with a combined active zone covering the interior of the room [0016-0017]); (reflections of the radar signal [0035])
and a processor (one or more processors [0085]), coupled to the radar and the display device ([FIG. 2]) and configured to:
obtain a point cloud according to the reflected signal (in a basic geometric model where user position is represented by a bounding box of a point cloud captured by tracking device's radar(s) the system recognizes bounding boxes parallel to three-dimensional coordinate axes [0071])
generate a movement trajectory based on the point cloud (when a user starts with a walking state 150c and bends, for example, forward, intermediate positions of the user body may be illustrated by slanted boxes 510, 530. The geometric characteristics may be captured directly by the user trajectory processing software [0071]); (checking for recorded user trajectories leading to a certain condition [0069]); (Examiner’s note: also see at least FIG. 7A for illustration of an ordinary routine, including entering the room, walking to a chair, walking to the bookshelf; walking to the window, then walking to the bed, standing, sitting and laying down)
and display information associated with the movement trajectory through the graphical user interface (FIG. 8 is a schematic illustration 800 of a system dashboard that may be displayed to caretakers and possibly to a user 810. The dashboard may include personal data 820 of the user 810, timeframe choices 830 for calculating user statistics, daily sleep averages 840 for a chosen timeframe, average walking statistics 850, vital signs statistics 860, such as heart rate 860a and breathing rate 860b measured in awake and sleeping conditions, average number and duration of stay of visitors 870 [0078]).
Regarding claim 2, COKE discloses the detecting system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: group the point cloud to obtain a plurality of groups; generate a plurality of bounding boxes respectively corresponding to the plurality of groups, and obtain a plurality of centers respectively corresponding to the plurality of bounding boxes; and generate the movement trajectory according to the plurality of centers (each of the states may be associated with point densities, sizes, orientations, centers of gravity, and dispositions of bounding boxes of the point clouds [0013 & FIG. 1]. FIG. 5 is a schematic illustration 500 of geometry of a falling process. In a basic geometric model discussed where user position is represented by a bounding box of a point cloud captured by tracking device's radar(s) the system recognizes bounding boxes parallel to three-dimensional coordinate axes. Therefore, when a user starts with a walking state 150c and bends, for example, forward, intermediate positions of the user body may be illustrated by slanted boxes 510, 530; however, the system only recognizes canonical bounding boxes and replaces the slanted boxes 510, 530 with standard bounding boxes 520, 540, having progressively lower positions of centers of gravity and vertical heights and transitioning to a final state 367a. The geometric characteristics may be captured directly by the user trajectory processing software or may be taken into account by automatic classifiers [0071]).
Regarding claim 3, COKE discloses the detecting system of claim 2, wherein the plurality of groups comprises a first group and a second group, and the processor is further configured to: obtain a plurality of sampling points during a first time period from the point cloud to obtain the first group; and obtain a plurality of sampling points during a second time period from the point cloud to obtain the second group, wherein the second time period is different from the first time period (FIG. 5 is a schematic illustration 500 of geometry of a falling process. In a basic geometric model discussed where user position is represented by a bounding box of a point cloud captured by tracking device's radar(s) the system recognizes bounding boxes parallel to three-dimensional coordinate axes. Therefore, when a user starts with a walking state 150c and bends, for example, forward, intermediate positions of the user body may be illustrated by slanted boxes 510, 530; however, the system only recognizes canonical bounding boxes and replaces the slanted boxes 510, 530 with standard bounding boxes 520, 540, having progressively lower positions of centers of gravity and vertical heights and transitioning to a final state 367a. The geometric characteristics may be captured directly by the user trajectory processing software or may be taken into account by automatic classifiers [0071], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2).
Regarding claim 7, COKE discloses the detecting system of claim 1, wherein the information comprises at least one of the following: a displacement, an instantaneous velocity, an average velocity, an instantaneous acceleration, an average acceleration, a movement offset, and a dwell time (FIG. 8 is a schematic illustration 800 of a system dashboard that may be displayed to caretakers and possibly to a user 810. The dashboard may include average walking statistics 850 [0078], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1). It is further noted that the limitation “at least one of the following: a displacement, an instantaneous velocity, an average velocity, an instantaneous acceleration, an average acceleration, a movement offset, and a dwell time” is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight. In this case, the average walking statistics as disclosed by COKE corresponds to “an average velocity”.
Regarding claim 11, COKE discloses a detecting method for movement trajectory, comprising:
transmitting a radar signal to a detection area to receive a corresponding reflected signal (an always-on tracking device, embedded into a room (for example, plugged into an AC outlet or other power source) and including one or several ultra-wideband radars, such as frequency-modulated continuous-wave (FMCW) radar(s), with a combined active zone covering the interior of the room [0016-0017]); (reflections of the radar signal [0035])
obtaining a point cloud according to the reflected signal (in a basic geometric model where user position is represented by a bounding box of a point cloud captured by tracking device's radar(s) the system recognizes bounding boxes parallel to three-dimensional coordinate axes [0071])
generating a movement trajectory according to the point cloud (when a user starts with a walking state 150c and bends, for example, forward, intermediate positions of the user body may be illustrated by slanted boxes 510, 530. The geometric characteristics may be captured directly by the user trajectory processing software [0071]); (checking for recorded user trajectories leading to a certain condition [0069]); (Examiner’s note: also see at least FIG. 7A for illustration of an ordinary routine, including entering the room, walking to a chair, walking to the bookshelf; walking to the window, then walking to the bed, standing, sitting and laying down)
and displaying information associated with the movement trajectory through a graphical user interface (FIG. 8 is a schematic illustration 800 of a system dashboard that may be displayed to caretakers and possibly to a user 810. The dashboard may include personal data 820 of the user 810, timeframe choices 830 for calculating user statistics, daily sleep averages 840 for a chosen timeframe, average walking statistics 850, vital signs statistics 860, such as heart rate 860a and breathing rate 860b measured in awake and sleeping conditions, average number and duration of stay of visitors 870 [0078]).
Regarding claim 12, COKE discloses the detecting method of claim 11, wherein the step of generating the movement trajectory according to the point cloud comprises: grouping the point cloud to obtain a plurality of groups; generating a plurality of bounding boxes respectively corresponding to the plurality of groups, and obtaining a plurality of centers respectively corresponding to the plurality of bounding boxes; and generating the movement trajectory according to the plurality of centers (each of the states may be associated with point densities, sizes, orientations, centers of gravity, and dispositions of bounding boxes of the point clouds [0013 & FIG. 1]. FIG. 5 is a schematic illustration 500 of geometry of a falling process. In a basic geometric model discussed where user position is represented by a bounding box of a point cloud captured by tracking device's radar(s) the system recognizes bounding boxes parallel to three-dimensional coordinate axes. Therefore, when a user starts with a walking state 150c and bends, for example, forward, intermediate positions of the user body may be illustrated by slanted boxes 510, 530; however, the system only recognizes canonical bounding boxes and replaces the slanted boxes 510, 530 with standard bounding boxes 520, 540, having progressively lower positions of centers of gravity and vertical heights and transitioning to a final state 367a. The geometric characteristics may be captured directly by the user trajectory processing software or may be taken into account by automatic classifiers [0071]).
Regarding claim 13, COKE discloses the detecting method of claim 12, wherein the plurality of groups comprises a first group and a second group, and the step of grouping the point cloud to obtain the plurality of groups comprises: obtaining a plurality of sampling points during a first time period from the point cloud to obtain the first group; and obtaining a plurality of sampling points during a second time period from the point cloud to obtain the second group, wherein the second time period is different from the first time period (FIG. 5 is a schematic illustration 500 of geometry of a falling process. In a basic geometric model discussed where user position is represented by a bounding box of a point cloud captured by tracking device's radar(s) the system recognizes bounding boxes parallel to three-dimensional coordinate axes. Therefore, when a user starts with a walking state 150c and bends, for example, forward, intermediate positions of the user body may be illustrated by slanted boxes 510, 530; however, the system only recognizes canonical bounding boxes and replaces the slanted boxes 510, 530 with standard bounding boxes 520, 540, having progressively lower positions of centers of gravity and vertical heights and transitioning to a final state 367a. The geometric characteristics may be captured directly by the user trajectory processing software or may be taken into account by automatic classifiers [0071], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 12).
Regarding claim 17, COKE discloses the detecting method of claim 11, wherein the information comprises at least one of the following: a displacement, an instantaneous velocity, an average velocity, an instantaneous acceleration, an average acceleration, a movement offset, and a dwell time (FIG. 8 is a schematic illustration 800 of a system dashboard that may be displayed to caretakers and possibly to a user 810. The dashboard may include personal data 820 of the user 810, timeframe choices 830 for calculating user statistics, daily sleep averages 840 for a chosen timeframe, average walking statistics 850, vital signs statistics 860, such as heart rate 860a and breathing rate 860b measured in awake and sleeping conditions, average number and duration of stay of visitors 870 [0078]). It is further noted that the limitation “at least one of the following: a displacement, an instantaneous velocity, an average velocity, an instantaneous acceleration, an average acceleration, a movement offset, and a dwell time” is in alternative form; therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight. In this case, the average walking statistics as disclosed by COKE corresponds to “an average velocity”.
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) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COKE, in view of Lau (US 2021/0389452 A1 “LAU”).
Regarding claim 4, COKE discloses (Examiner’s note: What COKE does not disclose is ) the detecting system of claim 3,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LAU teaches that a window of radar data used by the radar analysis component 124 to compute a velocity of an object can be referred to as a coherent processing interval (CPI). A CPI can be defined by a start time and an end time [0031]. The radar analysis component 124 is configured to compute successive velocity measurements based upon CPIs that overlap in the time/sample space. For instance, the radar analysis component 124 can employ a sliding window that defines a CPI for each successive velocity measurement [0035 & FIG. 4]. The radar analysis component 124 can therefore compute an updated velocity of the object whenever additional radar data is received, rather than waiting for the time length of another CPI to compute an additional velocity measurement [0036].
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 COKE to include the teachings of LAU, because doing so would facilitate repeatedly computing a velocity of an object at a higher rate, as recognized by LAU. In addition, both of the prior art references, COKE and LAU, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, object detection using radar system.
Regarding claim 14, COKE discloses the detecting method of claim 13,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LAU teaches that a window of radar data used by the radar analysis component 124 to compute a velocity of an object can be referred to as a coherent processing interval (CPI). A CPI can be defined by a start time and an end time [0031]. The radar analysis component 124 is configured to compute successive velocity measurements based upon CPIs that overlap in the time/sample space. For instance, the radar analysis component 124 can employ a sliding window that defines a CPI for each successive velocity measurement [0035 & FIG. 4]. The radar analysis component 124 can therefore compute an updated velocity of the object whenever additional radar data is received, rather than waiting for the time length of another CPI to compute an additional velocity measurement [0036].
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 COKE to include the teachings of LAU, because doing so would facilitate repeatedly computing a velocity of an object at a higher rate, as recognized by LAU.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COKE, in view of Akahoshi et al. (US 2022/0018959 A1 “AKAHOSHI”).
Regarding claim 5, COKE discloses the detecting system of claim 3, wherein the information comprises a first bounding box corresponding to the first group (each of the states may be associated with point densities, sizes, orientations, centers of gravity, and dispositions of bounding boxes of the point clouds [0013 & FIG. 1], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, AKAHOSHI teaches that a detection intensity quantifying unit 50 quantifies a detection intensity after being emitted from the sensors 1a and 1b. A visualizing unit 51 visualizes the planes in colors or lights and shades according to the magnitudes of the numerical values of the detection intensities calculated by the detection intensity quantifying unit 50. Image data after visualization is displayed on a monitor 46 that is a display [0047 & FIG. 4]. As the distance d from the distance measurement sensor 1 to the object 6 increases, the intensity of detection of the object 6 decreases [0048].
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 COKE to include the teachings of AKAHOSHI, because doing so would enable easy confirmation of detection intensity distribution by visualization, as recognized by AKAHOSHI. In addition, both of the prior art references, COKE and AKAHOSHI, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, object detection using distance measurement sensor (i.e., radar).
Regarding claim 15, COKE discloses the detecting method of claim 13, wherein the information comprises a first bounding box corresponding to the first group (each of the states may be associated with point densities, sizes, orientations, centers of gravity, and dispositions of bounding boxes of the point clouds [0013 & FIG. 1], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 12),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, AKAHOSHI teaches that a detection intensity quantifying unit 50 quantifies a detection intensity after being emitted from the sensors 1a and 1b. A visualizing unit 51 visualizes the planes in colors or lights and shades according to the magnitudes of the numerical values of the detection intensities calculated by the detection intensity quantifying unit 50. Image data after visualization is displayed on a monitor 46 that is a display [0047 & FIG. 4]. As the distance d from the distance measurement sensor 1 to the object 6 increases, the intensity of detection of the object 6 decreases [0048].
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 COKE to include the teachings of AKAHOSHI, because doing so would enable easy confirmation of detection intensity distribution by visualization, as recognized by AKAHOSHI.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COKE, in view of Zhang et al. (WO 2018/071416 A1 “ZHANG”).
Regarding claim 6, COKE discloses the detecting system of claim 3, wherein the information comprises a first bounding box corresponding to the first group (each of the states may be associated with point densities, sizes, orientations, centers of gravity, and dispositions of bounding boxes of the point clouds [0013 & FIG. 1], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2),
COKE further discloses customary routines and related clusters in a multi-dimensional space of objects and time intervals. A routine may be defined as a frequently repeated sequence of states, related objects, time intervals for staying in each state and other associated parameters [0072 & FIG. 6].
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ZHANG teaches that one or more of the points in the point cloud may be displayed with a color corresponding to a parameter of the acquired data, such as a time parameter. Color may indicate time, such as progressing through a series of colors as the scan is undertaken, resulting in clear indication of the path by which the SLAM scan was performed [0146].
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 COKE to include the teachings of ZHANG, because colorization of the point cloud may help users understand and analyze elements or features of the environment in which the system is operating, as recognized by ZHANG. In addition, both of the prior art references, COKE and ZHANG, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, tracking systems using electromagnetic waves.
Regarding claim 16, COKE discloses the detecting method of claim 13, wherein the information comprises a first bounding box corresponding to the first group (each of the states may be associated with point densities, sizes, orientations, centers of gravity, and dispositions of bounding boxes of the point clouds [0013 & FIG. 1], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 12),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, ZHANG teaches that one or more of the points in the point cloud may be displayed with a color corresponding to a parameter of the acquired data, such as a time parameter. Color may indicate time, such as progressing through a series of colors as the scan is undertaken, resulting in clear indication of the path by which the SLAM scan was performed [0146].
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 COKE to include the teachings of ZHANG, because colorization of the point cloud may help users understand and analyze elements or features of the environment in which the system is operating, as recognized by ZHANG.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COKE, in view of Shaker et al. (US 2021/0197834 A1 “SHAKER”).
Regarding claim 8, COKE discloses the detecting system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain environmental information of the detection area (objects in the room may be initially detected by monitoring absolute coordinates of a bounding box of the point cloud in various user states. The objects may include a bed, a table, a chair, a bookshelf, a door, and/or a window. Objects in the room may be detected by subtracting multiple positions of the bounding box from the area of the room. A bed may be detected by observing the person in a laying down state at a certain height off the floor [0013]);
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SHAKER teaches that the radar is intended to abstract the whole body as one object and provides information about the location of the person relative to the UWB radar. The processing incorporates clutter removal which separates the reflected signal off the person being monitored from static objects in the experiment area. By using this object detection feature, location data is extracted in Cartesian coordinates along with the time at that location. The gait velocity can be calculated with time and the z coordinate for each walk performed (where the z-axis represents the vector perpendicular to the plane of the radar placement) [0114]. There is a relatively constant reflection in the third region, bed region, which is seen as a stationary clutter. The stationary clutter can be eliminated after removing DC from the unwrapped phases. Therefore, the region will not have any vibration in the range-vibration map [0187].
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 COKE to include the teachings of SHAKER, because doing so would improve vital/ life signs monitoring by accounting for clutters, as recognized by SHAKER. In addition, both of the prior art references, COKE and SHAKER, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, object sensing using wireless signals (i.e., radar).
Regarding claim 18, COKE discloses the detecting method of claim 11, further comprising: obtaining environmental information of the detection area (objects in the room may be initially detected by monitoring absolute coordinates of a bounding box of the point cloud in various user states. The objects may include a bed, a table, a chair, a bookshelf, a door, and/or a window. Objects in the room may be detected by subtracting multiple positions of the bounding box from the area of the room. A bed may be detected by observing the person in a laying down state at a certain height off the floor [0013]);
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SHAKER teaches that the radar is intended to abstract the whole body as one object and provides information about the location of the person relative to the UWB radar. The processing incorporates clutter removal which separates the reflected signal off the person being monitored from static objects in the experiment area. By using this object detection feature, location data is extracted in Cartesian coordinates along with the time at that location. The gait velocity can be calculated with time and the z coordinate for each walk performed (where the z-axis represents the vector perpendicular to the plane of the radar placement) [0114]. There is a relatively constant reflection in the third region, bed region, which is seen as a stationary clutter. The stationary clutter can be eliminated after removing DC from the unwrapped phases. Therefore, the region will not have any vibration in the range-vibration map [0187].
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 COKE to include the teachings of SHAKER, because doing so would improve vital/ life signs monitoring by accounting for clutters, as recognized by SHAKER.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action, and rewritten in independent form, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. However, the Examiner notes that there is a possibility the scope of the claims would be significantly changed after the claims are rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action; thus, further search and consideration will be made after official amendment is filed on record.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, COKE discloses the detecting system of claim 1. However, COKE does not disclose that wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a first longitudinal displacement signal according to the point cloud; perform a detrending operation, a normalization, and a smoothing on the first longitudinal displacement signal to generate a second longitudinal displacement signal; perform a peak detection on the second longitudinal displacement signal to obtain a plurality of peaks of the second longitudinal displacement signal; and determine a number of times of standing-sitting actions according to the plurality of peaks, wherein the information comprises the number of times of the standing-sitting actions.
Furthermore, WU et al. (US 2022/0026519 A1) discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a first longitudinal displacement signal according to the point cloud (the characteristics and/or STI (e.g. motion information) may comprise: displacement [0155]); perform a detrending operation (detrend the gravity and potential sensor drifting by removing the moving average trend [0262]), a normalization (normalization [0177]), and a smoothing (further smooth the detrended data [0262]) perform zero-crossing and peak detection to identify all the events-of-interests from the data series [0263]);
Further still, LI et al. (US 2017/0102457 A1) discloses a system and method for a hybrid radar system that integrates frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) mode and interferometry mode. Specifically, FIG. 14(a) depicts the micro-Doppler information of a series of motions performed by a person facing the radar system of the present invention. The subject changed from standing to sitting on a chair, and then waved his arm twice. When sitting down, most parts of the upper body moved backward, producing a large negative Doppler frequency component at A. Meanwhile, some other parts such as the head moved forward and created a positive frequency at B. When the bottom reaches the seat, the upper body approaches towards the seatback and creates another significant negative Doppler frequency at C. During the arm waving action, the subject lifted his arm from the armrest and laid it down immediately, with the elbow serving as the pivot. Correspondingly, on the spectrum there was a negative frequency (D) followed by a positive frequency (E). Between these actions, the target just sat still [0073].
Applicant’s claim also encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. Neither COKE, WU, nor LI anticipates or renders fairly obvious, alone, or in combination, to teach all the additional limitations as cited in claim 9, within the context of Applicant' s claimed invention as a whole, that is, “wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a first longitudinal displacement signal according to the point cloud; perform a detrending operation, a normalization, and a smoothing on the first longitudinal displacement signal to generate a second longitudinal displacement signal; perform a peak detection on the second longitudinal displacement signal to obtain a plurality of peaks of the second longitudinal displacement signal; and determine a number of times of standing-sitting actions according to the plurality of peaks, wherein the information comprises the number of times of the standing-sitting actions” as recited in claim 9 and as similarly recited in claim(s) 19.
Regarding claim 10, COKE discloses the detecting system of claim 1. However, COKE does not disclose that wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a first longitudinal velocity signal according to the point cloud; perform a detrending operation, a normalization, and a smoothing on the first longitudinal velocity signal to generate a second longitudinal velocity signal; perform a peak detection on the second longitudinal velocity signal to obtain a plurality of peaks of the second longitudinal velocity signal; and determine a number of times of standing-sitting actions according to the plurality of peaks, wherein the information comprises the number of times of the standing-sitting actions.
Furthermore, WU discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a first longitudinal velocity signal according to the point cloud; perform a detrending operation (detrend the gravity and potential sensor drifting by removing the moving average trend [0262]), a normalization (normalization [0177]), and a smoothing (further smooth the detrended data [0262]) second longitudinal velocity signal to obtain a plurality of peaks of the second longitudinal velocity signal (perform zero-crossing and peak detection to identify all the events-of-interests from the data series [0263]);
Further still, LI discloses a system and method for a hybrid radar system that integrates frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) mode and interferometry mode. Specifically, FIG. 14(a) depicts the micro-Doppler information of a series of motions performed by a person facing the radar system of the present invention. The subject changed from standing to sitting on a chair, and then waved his arm twice. When sitting down, most parts of the upper body moved backward, producing a large negative Doppler frequency component at A. Meanwhile, some other parts such as the head moved forward and created a positive frequency at B. When the bottom reaches the seat, the upper body approaches towards the seatback and creates another significant negative Doppler frequency at C. During the arm waving action, the subject lifted his arm from the armrest and laid it down immediately, with the elbow serving as the pivot. Correspondingly, on the spectrum there was a negative frequency (D) followed by a positive frequency (E). Between these actions, the target just sat still [0073].
Applicant’s claim also encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. Neither COKE, WU, nor LI anticipates or renders fairly obvious, alone, or in combination, to teach all the additional limitations as cited in claim 10, within the context of Applicant' s claimed invention as a whole, that is, “wherein the processor is further configured to: obtain a first longitudinal velocity signal according to the point cloud; perform a detrending operation, a normalization, and a smoothing on the first longitudinal velocity signal to generate a second longitudinal velocity signal; perform a peak detection on the second longitudinal velocity signal to obtain a plurality of peaks of the second longitudinal velocity signal; and determine a number of times of standing-sitting actions according to the plurality of peaks, wherein the information comprises the number of times of the standing-sitting actions” as recited in claim 10 and as similarly recited in claim(s) 20.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cheng et al. (US 2023/0140093 A1) discloses a system and method for patient movement detection and fall monitoring to address the need to proactively monitor patients to detect abnormal movements, in-room activity, and other movements associated with providing in-room care. The system comprises an environmental model which can be used to track the position and movement of a patient and a classifier network configured to receive movement data and classify a patient's movement as normal or abnormal movement.
Farah et al. (US 12,007,469 B1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of a positional sensing system including a plurality of positional sensing devices for tracking objects moving within the environment. The positional sensing system is used to determine the occupancy and trajectories of people within the environment. The system can determine whether certain areas of the environment need to be cleaned based on occupancy.
Chen et al. (US 12,313,771 B1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of point cloud data transformed to enable the classification of objects detected within the sensor data.
Pratt, JR. et al. (US 2023/0341859 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of a plurality of obstacle depth sensors positioned relative to the frame and together configured to detect obstacles 360 degrees about the frame.
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, WILLIAM J KELLEHER can be reached at (571) 272-7753. 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 January 8, 2026