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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202410090692.7, filed on 01/22/2024.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Su (CN 115407320 A).
Regarding claim 1, Su discloses [Note: the corresponding cited sections from Su can be found in English translation of Su patent, included in this office action as NPL]
A personnel detection method via millimeter-wave (mmWave) radars executable by an electronic device (see pg. 5, paragraph 4, “The technical solution of the present invention is: an indoor human body space positioning…recognition method, a recognition system is installed indoors, and the recognition system is composed of a detector, including a hotspot millimeter wave radar and a detection millimeter wave radar…”), comprising:
activating a mmWave radar to emit radar waves to scan an indoor area (see pg. 5, paragraph 5, “First, the hotspot millimeter-wave radar set on the top of the room detects in real time whether there are people in the room and the space range where the person is located”);
determining whether a bilateral head-shoulder difference of a human body is within a first angle (see Fig. 4; pg. 6, paragraph 2, angle information of the human body can be determined from spatial data of the target’s head and two shoulders);
if the bilateral head-shoulder difference of the human body is within the first angle, determining whether a unilateral and bilateral head-shoulder difference of the human body is greater than the first angle and between a second angle and a third angle (see pg. 11, paragraph 2, “the present invention further corrects the angle values calculated by the key points in real time. Specifically, it is the correction of the original angle estimates of the three key points of the head and shoulders. The source of the correction is the calculated angle value of the human body posture. The angle information calculated from the three key points is fed back to the three key points, and the original angle estimation values of the three key points are corrected, so that the angle estimation values of the key points are synchronized with the angle values of the human body posture”);
if the unilateral and bilateral head-shoulder difference of the human body is greater than the first angle and between the second angle and the third angle, determining whether a reflection amount of a relative area of a head and shoulders is within a preset value (see pg. 11, paragraph 1, method includes determining if measured values meet a set threshold);
if the reflection amount of the relative area of the head and shoulders is within the preset value, sampling movement trajectories of a head and shoulder difference of the human body within the preset value (see pg. 11, paragraph 1, detector continues to scan for body position depending on threshold value); and
determining the number of people based on the sampled movement trajectories (see pg. 5, paragraph 8, the invention can use “detectors to realize real-time and precise positioning of indoor target people”).
Regarding claim 5, Su further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining whether the unilateral and bilateral head-shoulder difference of the human body further comprises:
calculating a distance set
d
h
=min(d₁, d₂, ...) to get h points (see pg. 7, paragraph 2, distance between radar and target can be determined);
determining whether there are emission points, (
d
h
+(the first distance))<
d
s
,<(
d
h
+(a third distance)), distributed on one side or both sides of the h points within a fifth angle around the h points (see pg. 6, paragraph 2, detector can detect multiple angles of target);
if the emission points are distributed on both sides of the h points, defining the emission points as dₛₗ and dₛᵣ;
if the emission points are distributed on one sides of the h points, defining the emission points as
d
s
; and
determining combinations of
d
h
and both dₛₗ and dₛᵣ or
d
h
and dₛ as the human body (see pg. 5, paragraph 6, recognition model can determine if there’s a human body based on measured values).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4, 7-9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su (CN 115407320 A) in view of Chung et al. (US 20250229739 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Su further discloses [Note: what Su fails to disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 1, wherein the step of determining whether the bilateral head-shoulder difference of the human body further comprises:
calculating a distance set
d
h
1
=min(d₁, d₂, …,
d
i
) to get h1 points and defining a distance
d
h
between the head and the mmWave radar (see pg. 6, paragraph 2, radar device can determine head position of target; pg. 7, paragraph 2, distance between radar and target can be determined), wherein h indicates the head, i indicates a testing frequency, and indicate a plurality of mmWave radar signals (see pg. 5, last paragraph, system can use multiple frequencies and signals);
determining whether there are emission points, (
d
h
1
+(a first distance))<
d
s
<(
d
h
1
+(a second distance)), distributed on both sides of the h1 points within a fourth angle around the h1 points (see pg. 6, paragraph 2, detector can detect multiple angles of target); and
if there are emission points distributed on both sides of the h1 points within the fourth angle around the h1 points, defining distances from the mmWave radar to the h1 points as
d
s
l
1
and dₛᵣ₁ respectively, thereby determining that the h1 points and an area surrounding the fourth angle of the h1 points are the human body (see pg. 5, paragraph 6, recognition model can determine if there’s a human body based on measured values).
Chung discloses
calculating a distance dₛ between the shoulder and the mmWave radar, where s indicates the shoulder (see Fig. 6; pg. 3, paragraph 0055, the radar sensor can detect the distance to the shoulder and upper body of the torso);
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Chung into the invention of Su. Both Su and Chung are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar sensors for human body measurement and detection, including head and shoulders. Su discloses finding a distance between a target head and the radar, determining emission points within an angle, and determining the presence of a human body; however, Su fails to disclose calculating a distance between the shoulder and the radar. This feature is disclosed by Chung where the distance from the top of the torso to the radar can be calculated. The combination of Su and Chung would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve accuracy of target detection, allowing for confirmation that the distance from head to radar and shoulder to radar is a reasonable for a human body.
Regarding claim 3, Su further discloses
The method of claim 2, wherein the step of determining whether the bilateral head-shoulder difference of the human body further comprises:
discovering emission points based on
d
h
2
=min(d₁, d₂, …,
d
i
) outside a range of the fourth angle of the hl points (see pg. 5, paragraph 4, device can scan a room in addition to scanning a detected space range);
determining whether there are emission points, (
d
h
2
+(the first distance))<
d
s
<(
d
h
2
+(the second distance)), distributed on both sides of h2 points within the fourth angle around h2 points (see pg. 6, paragraph 2, detector can detect multiple angles of target); and
if there are emission points distributed on both sides of the h2 points within the fourth angle around the h2 points, defining distances from the mmWave radar to the h2 points as
d
s
l
2
and
d
s
r
2
respectively, thereby determining that the h2 points and an area surrounding the fourth angle of the h2 points are the human body (see pg. 5, paragraph 6, recognition model can determine if there’s a human body based on measured values; pg. 5, paragraph 9, human body detection can be used for multiple subjects when multiple people are in a room).
Regarding claim 4, Su further discloses
The method of claim 3, wherein the first angle is 15°, the second angle is 31°, the third angle is 120°, the fourth angle is 15°, the first distance is 15 millimeters, and the second distance is 30 millimeters (see pg. 5, paragraph 4, the angles can vary as the sensors detect 6 degrees of freedom; pg. 7, paragraph 2, the distance can vary depending on the position of the detector).
Regarding claims 6-10, the same cited sections and rationale for claims 1-5 are applied. The only difference between claims 1-5 and claims 6-10 is that claims 1-5 refer to a method while claims 6-10 refer to an apparatus. The examiner considers Su pg. 5, paragraph 3, to show that the radar apparatus performs the radar method of claims 1-5.
Regarding claims 11-15, the same cited sections and rationale from claims 1-5 are applied. The only difference between claims 1-5 and claims 11-15 is that claims 1-5 refer to a method while claims 11-15 refer to an apparatus. The examiner considers Su pg. 5, paragraph 3, to show that the radar apparatus performs the radar method of claims 1-5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA A EDRADA whose telephone number is (571)272-4859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm 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 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.
/ISABELLA A EDRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648