DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the original application filed on 1/19/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending
in the application.
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 .
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning
of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b/f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10 and 16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "processing device" and "processing elements" in claims 10 and 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitation " processing device" and "processing elements" in claims 10 and 16 invoke 35
U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim (e.g., the claims only recite certain functions and fail to set forth any structures involved in the functions). Without structural limitation, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of these claims would extend to all ways of performing the functions, those known and unknown to the inventor, and amounts to pure functional claiming without boundaries. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a/f)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The original disclosure fails to provide an enabling disclosure for all known and unknown ways of implementing "processing device" and "processing elements" as claimed in claims 10 and16.
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ce Zhang et al. (US 10,305,766 Bl, hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses:
A method comprising:
determining wireless connection data for a wireless communications link (The TX 102 and RX 104A, 104B, 104C, and 104D may communicate with a computing device 150 through a network 115. The network 115 may include wireless aspects, but will likely connect wirelessly to the TX 102 and RX 104A, 104B, 104C, and 104D, e.g., by way of a local access point that provides an Internet or WAN connection. Zhang: Col. 5 Line 6-15):
generating a plurality of wireless connection metrics based on the wireless connection data (wireless device 200 adapted to detect and transmit channel state information (CSI) or received signal strength indicator (RSSI) data useable by a NN to perform presence detection, Zhang: Col. 6 Line 20-38);
generating a selection of one or more of a plurality of subcarriers based, at least in part, on the plurality of wireless connection metrics (the computing device 150 may receive, from a first wireless RX and a second wireless RX that are located in a building, data that includes first channel properties in a first communication link between a wireless TX and the first wireless RX and second channel properties 55 in a second communication link between the wireless TX and the second wireless RX, Zhang: Col. 15 Line 42-60); and
generating a determination of a presence event based, at least in part, on the selection of the one or more subcarriers (detect passive human presence with a wireless TX and a wireless RX, e.g., with one TX-RX link. Wireless devices may acquire either the instantaneous channel state information (CSI) or its second order statistics of CSI during their regular operation, e.g., statistical channel properties, Zhang: Col. 10 Line 39-62).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses:
A system comprising (Zhang: Fig. 1):
a transceiver configured to establish a wireless communications link compatible with a wireless communications protocol (wireless device 200 may include, but not be limited to, a transmitter (TX) 202, a receiver (RX) 204, a communications interface 206, one or more antenna 210, a memory 214, one or more input/output (I/O) devices 218, and a processor 220. the transmitter 202 and the receiver 204 are combined into a transceiver, Zhang: Fig. 2A, Col. 6 Line 20-38); and
a processing device configured to (performed by processing logic that may comprise hardware (e.g., circuitry, dedicated logic, programmable logic, microcode, etc.), software (such as instructions running on the processor), firmware or a combination thereof, Zhang: Col. 12 Line 11-22):
determine wireless connection data for the wireless communications link (The TX 102 and RX 104A, 104B, 104C, and 104D may communicate with a computing device 150 through a network 115. The network 115 may include wireless aspects, but will likely connect wirelessly to the TX 102 and RX 104A, 104B, 104C, and 104D, e.g., by way of a local access point that provides an Internet or WAN connection. Zhang: Col. 5 Line 6-15):
generate a plurality of wireless connection metrics based on the wireless connection data (wireless device 200 adapted to detect and transmit channel state information (CSI) or received signal strength indicator (RSSI) data useable by a NN to perform presence detection, Zhang: Col. 6 Line 20-38);
generate a selection of one or more subcarriers based, at least in part, on the plurality of wireless connection metrics (the computing device 150 may receive, from a first wireless RX and a second wireless RX that are located in a building, data that includes first channel properties in a first communication link between a wireless TX and the first wireless RX and second channel properties 55 in a second communication link between the wireless TX and the second wireless RX, Zhang: Col. 15 Line 42-60); and
generate a determination of a presence event based, at least in part, on the selection of the one or more subcarriers (detect passive human presence with a wireless TX and a wireless RX, e.g., with one TX-RX link. Wireless devices may acquire either the instantaneous channel state information (CSI) or its second order statistics of CSI during their regular operation, e.g., statistical channel properties, Zhang: Col. 10 Line 39-62).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang discloses:
A device comprising (Zhang: Fig. 1):
processing elements configured to (processing logic receiving, from a wireless RX, first data indicative of channel 25 properties of a first communication link between the wireless RX in a first device and a wireless transmitter (TX) in a second device, Zhang: Col. 12 Line 23-41):
determine wireless connection data for a wireless communications link (The TX 102 and RX 104A, 104B, 104C, and 104D may communicate with a computing device 150 through a network 115. The network 115 may include wireless aspects, but will likely connect wirelessly to the TX 102 and RX 104A, 104B, 104C, and 104D, e.g., by way of a local access point that provides an Internet or WAN connection. Zhang: Col. 5 Line 6-15):
generate a plurality of wireless connection metrics based on the wireless connection data (wireless device 200 adapted to detect and transmit channel state information (CSI) or received signal strength indicator (RSSI) data useable by a NN to perform presence detection, Zhang: Col. 6 Line 20-38);
generate a selection of one or more subcarriers based, at least in part, on the plurality of wireless connection metrics (the computing device 150 may receive, from a first wireless RX and a second wireless RX that are located in a building, data that includes first channel properties in a first communication link between a wireless TX and the first wireless RX and second channel properties 55 in a second communication link between the wireless TX and the second wireless RX, Zhang: Col. 15 Line 42-60); and
generate a determination of a presence event based, at least in part, on the selection of the one or more subcarriers (detect passive human presence with a wireless TX and a wireless RX, e.g., with one TX-RX link. Wireless devices may acquire either the instantaneous channel state information (CSI) or its second order statistics of CSI during their regular operation, e.g., statistical channel properties, Zhang: Col. 10 Line 39-62).
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 17, Zhang teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 16 above.
Zhang further discloses:
wherein the wireless connection data comprises channel state information for each subcarrier of the wireless communications link (RX can measure and transmit channel state information (CSI), which is data that includes channel properties of a communication link between a TX and RX, Zhang: Col. 6 Line 5-19):
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 18, Zhang teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 16 above.
Zhang further discloses:
wherein the plurality of wireless connection metrics comprise one or more environmental metrics (provide more information about the environment under surveillance, and thus may improve detection capability when applying a NN to CSI data or CSI-liked data, Zhang: Col. 6 Line 5-19).
Regarding claims 6, 14 and 20 Zhang teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 16 above.
Zhang further discloses:
comparing wireless connection data of the selection of the one or more subcarriers with a plurality of designated threshold values (A detection decision of present may be made in response to a threshold number of a series of sets of discrete samples of channel properties data being classified, Zhang: Col. 25 Line 15-20).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Zhang teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claims 6 and 14 above.
Zhang further discloses:
determining the plurality of designated threshold values based on one or more calibration operations (a threshold detector that detects the analog signal as a zero or one based on a comparison to some threshold value (e.g., over 0.50 is a one) and generates a detection decision based on a combination of the predictive outputs over the sampling period, Zhang: Col. 27 Line 46-50); or
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Zhang further discloses:
The method of claim 7, wherein the one or more calibration operations comprise:
determining a first plurality of measurements via the wireless communications link when an entity is not present (these trained weights (w,) may then be used in combination with the CSI data and any bias term to generate an output as a weighted sum, which may then be passed through a detection activation function to determine whether or not a presence is detected, Zhang: Col. 13 Line 41-46); and
determining a second plurality of measurements via the wireless communications link when an entity is present (The computing device may further process the first channel properties and the second channel properties with a multi-layer neural network to detect not only presence of a human in the building, but also determine a relative location of the human with respect to a closest of the first wireless RX, the second wireless RX, and the wireless TX, Zhang: Col. 4 Line 14-30);
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Zhang further discloses:
The method of claim 8 further comprising:
generating the plurality of designated threshold values based on a comparison of the first plurality of measurements and the second plurality of measurements (the processing logic uses the device CSI collector 172 to measure the quality metric and whether the quality metric satisfies a threshold condition, Zhang: Col. 18 Line 40-62).
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that
are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-5, 9, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view
of Feng Zhang et al. (US 12,279,190 Bl, hereinafter “Feng”).
Regarding claims 4, 13 and 19, Zhang teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 16 above.
Zhang does not explicitly disclose:
filtering the one or more subcarriers based, at least in part, on the wireless connection data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Feng teaches:
filtering the one or more subcarriers based, at least in part, on the wireless connection data (the processing logic receives the CSI stream and performs interpolation and IIR filtering on the CSI stream. The processing logic can compute one or more statistical parameter values and the FFT of the CSI values, Feng: Col. 11 Line 27-41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang in view of Feng in order to further modify filtering the one or more subcarriers based, at least in part, on the wireless connection data from the teachings of Feng.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the filter receives the samples as inputs and determines the average of those samples as a single output (Feng: Col. 17 Line 27-35).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Feng teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Zhang does not explicitly disclose:
ranking the one or more subcarriers based, at least in part, on the wireless connection data.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Feng teaches:
ranking the one or more subcarriers based, at least in part, on the wireless connection data (The processing logic can rank a set of channel subcarrier indexes based on a second value representing an average fading power for the respective subcarrier index and a third value representing a variance of the respective subcarrier index over time, Feng: Col. 18 Line 1-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang in view of Feng in order to further modify ranking the one or more subcarriers based on the wireless connection data from the teachings of Feng.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the processing logic can determine each channel subcarrier index score based on one or more of these parameter values (Feng: Col. 18 Line 1-19).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches all the claimed limitations as set forth in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Zhang does not explicitly disclose:
generating the plurality of designated threshold values based on a comparison of the first plurality of measurements and the second plurality of measurements.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Feng teaches:
generating the plurality of designated threshold values based on a comparison of the first plurality of measurements and the second plurality of measurements (the processing logic uses the device CSI collector 172 to measure the quality metric and whether the quality metric satisfies a threshold condition, Feng: Col. 18 Line 40-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang in view of Feng in order to further modify generating the plurality of designated threshold values based on a comparison of the first plurality of measurements and the second plurality of measurements from the teachings of Feng.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because the processing logic can determine each channel subcarrier index score based on one or more of these parameter values (Feng: Col. 18 Line 1-19).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
References considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached “Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
Chen (US 2017 /0086202 Al); See Fig. 1, [0095]-[0101], [0114].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be
directed to SANG C LEE whose telephone number is (703)756-1461. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, HASSAN PHILLIPS can be reached on (571)272-3940. 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.
/S.C.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 January 30, 2026