Detailed Action
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/01/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/01/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-18, and 21-24 remain pending in this application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. No claims have been newly cancelled or are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/01/2026 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All previous prior art rejections are overcome in consideration of amendments, however additional prior art rejections are presented below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/01/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 8, 15, and therefore dependent claims 2-6, 9-13, 16-18, and 21-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recites the limitation "an additional change in motion". However, it is unclear to the Examiner what an additional change in motion refers to because a first change in motion is not properly introduced. For the purposes of this examination, the Examiner will interpret “an additional change in motion” as “a change in motion”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220206108 A1), hereinafter Lee, in view of Amores (US 20180052520 A1), hereinafter Amores.
Regarding claim 1, Lee, as shown below, discloses a method of controlling an electronic device comprising the following limitations:
obtaining a first set of sensor data from a sensor operating in a long-range mode (See at least Fig. 2, [0031] “Also, the transceiver 110 may transmit a radar signal to a long distance range 202 corresponding to the long distance mode included in the first mode so as to reach a distance of, for example, 300 m from the vehicle 230.”, [0029] “The term “imaging radar” refers to a radar configured to transmit microwaves to an object (target), acquire reflection waves reflected and returning from the object (target) in sequence depending on the distance and acquire information about the presence and shape of the object.”);
detecting, based on the first set of sensor data and a first motion recognition algorithm, that a target is moving within a first range of the electronic device (See at least [0058] “When the first mode is activated, the processing unit 120 may tracks the detected object. For example, by tracking the nearby vehicle, the processing unit 120 may determine the nearby vehicle's current position, driving direction and the like.”);
in response to detecting that the target is moving within the first range of the electronic device, obtaining a second set of sensor data from the sensor operating in a short- range mode or medium-range mode (See at least Fig. 2[0063] “when it is determined that the object has entered into the short distance range or the object is expected to enter into the short distance range, the processing unit 120 of the object detection radar apparatus 100 may activate the second mode.” );
detecting, based on the second set of sensor data and a second motion recognition algorithm, (See at least Fig. 2, [0070] “When the second mode is activated, the processing unit 120 may recognize the object based on a reflected radar signal. Here, the processing unit 120 may recognize the object by performing spatial imaging 520.”).
Lee does not explicitly disclose ; and confirming, during a timeout window, the gesture by detecting an additional change in motion based on the second set of sensor data. However, Amores, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses:
(See at least Figs. 1-2, 11, [0076] “At block 604, the user 160 performs a command gesture”);
confirming, during a timeout window, the gesture by detecting an additional change in motion based on the second set of sensor data (See at least Fig. 11, [0079] “At block 616 and after the user performs a final gesture indicating confirmation that the signal processing unit correctly interpreted the previous command gesture”, [0080] “if the confirmation gesture is not received, and/or if the user explicitly wants to gesture that the command was not properly understood, the system may first, time out” The Examiner notes that the second set of sensor data as claimed is interpreted to include the confirmation gesture)
Furthermore, 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 electronic device system disclosed by Lee with the gesture system disclosed by Amores. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance efficiency through minimizing false positive detections (See at least [0042] “one or more embodiments detect gestures using sensors in such a way that there is a low false positive rate by a combination of multiple factors.”).
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Lee and Amores, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee additionally discloses
the sensor is a radar sensor (See at least [0029] “FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating the configuration of an object detection radar apparatus in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure.”).
Regarding claim 3, The combination of Lee and Amores, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee additionally discloses
a frequency of radio waves emitted by the sensor operating in the long-range mode is different from a frequency of radio waves emitted by the sensor operating in the short-range mode or medium-range mode (See at least Fig. 4, [0064] “Here, when the second mode is activated, a bandwidth 410 of a radar signal may be 200 MHz for the long distance range, 500 MHz for the medium distance range and 3 GHz for the second mode.”).
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Lee and Amores, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee additionally discloses
detecting, based on the first set of sensor data and the first motion recognition algorithm, that the target is moving within the first range of the electronic device comprises detecting that the target is moving within the first range of the electronic device at a velocity exceeding a first predetermined velocity. (See at least Fig. 3 [0043] “For example, the medium and long distance ranges 201 and 202 of the first mode 300 may have a velocity resolution 317 of 0.4 kph and a velocity accuracy 318 of 0.2 kph.” Lee discloses a velocity resolution which is a minimum threshold velocity for detection.).
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Lee and Amores, as shown above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Lee additionally discloses
obtaining a third set of sensor data from the sensor operating in the short-range mode or medium-range mode; and detecting, based on the third set of sensor data and the second motion recognition algorithm, that the target is moving within a third range of the electronic device, the third range less than the second range (See at least Figs 2-3, [0030] “Here, the first mode may correspond to a medium and long distance range and the second mode may correspond to a short distance range shorter than the medium and long distance range.” Lee discloses 3 operating modes (short, medium, and long). While the examiner previously cites the ‘short’ mode as the second mode, in context of claim 6 the first mode may be the long mode, the second mode may be medium mode, and the third may be the short mode.).
Regarding claim 8, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 9, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 2. Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 2, shown above.
Regarding claim 10, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
Regarding claim 11, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 11 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4, shown above.
Regarding claim 13, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 6. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6, shown above.
Regarding claim 15, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above.
Regarding claim 16, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 3. Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 3, shown above.
Regarding claim 17, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 4. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 4, shown above.
Claims 5, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Amores, in further view of Udall (WO 2019236764 A1), hereinafter Udall.
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Lee and Amores, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Lee and Amores does not explicitly disclose a set of resources of the electronic device utilized to execute the second motion recognition algorithm is more than a set of resources of the electronic device utilized to execute the first motion recognition algorithm. However, Udall, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
a set of resources of the electronic device utilized to execute the second motion recognition algorithm is more than a set of resources of the electronic device utilized to execute the first motion recognition algorithm (See at least [00164] “The second classifier has a higher complexity level than the first classifier, and demands more computational and caching resources from the electronic device”).
Furthermore, 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 electronic device system disclosed by Lee with the gesture system disclosed by Amores with the resource system disclosed by Udall. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve efficiency by reserving computations and caching resources (See at least [00164] “thereby reserving the computational and caching resources of the electronic device 190”).
Regarding claim 12, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5, shown above.
Regarding claim 18, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 5. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 5, shown above.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, in view of Amores, in further view of Lien (US 20160320853 A1), hereinafter Lien.
Regarding claim 21, The combination of Lee and Amores, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Lee and Amores does not disclose detecting the gesture of the target comprises: performing, by the second motion recognition algorithm, clutter removal on the second set of sensor data; analyzing, by the second motion recognition algorithm, the second set of sensor data; and determining, by the second motion recognition algorithm, that the motion of the target corresponds to the gesture. However, Lien in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
detecting the gesture of the target comprises: performing, by the second motion recognition algorithm, clutter removal on the second set of sensor data (See at least Fig. 7, [0051] “At 706, the radar signal can be filtered, such as with a Moving Target Indicator (MTI) filter. Filtering the radar signal is not required, but can remove noise”);
analyzing, by the second motion recognition algorithm, the second set of sensor data; and determining, by the second motion recognition algorithm, that the motion of the target corresponds to the gesture (See at least Fig. 7, [0055] “At 714, a gesture is determined based on the displacement trajectory between the multiple points of the hand.”).
Furthermore, 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 electronic device system disclosed by Lee with the gesture system disclosed by Amores with the gesture recognition system disclosed by Lien. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously create a more simple, less costly, or less complex solution (See at least [0029] “this radar system 202 can be simpler, less costly, or less complex than conventional radar”).
Regarding claim 22, The combination of Lee and Amores, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Lee and Amores does not disclose the gesture comprises a micro-scale displacement of the target, and wherein detecting the gesture comprises detecting a sub-millimeter- scale displacement in a position of the target from a first transmission to a next transmission. However, Lien in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the gesture comprises a micro-scale displacement of the target, and wherein detecting the gesture comprises detecting a sub-millimeter- scale displacement in a position of the target from a first transmission to a next transmission (See at least [0059] “the micro-motion tracking module 308 may use the phase change of the radar signal to extract millimeter and sub-millimeter displacements for high-frequency movements of the points”, [0061] “The RF-based micro-motion techniques described in FIGS. 2-7 enable gestures even in the millimeter or sub-millimeter scale”).
Furthermore, 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 electronic device system disclosed by Lee with the gesture system disclosed by Amores with the gesture recognition system disclosed by Lien. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously create a more simple, less costly, or less complex solution (See at least [0029] “this radar system 202 can be simpler, less costly, or less complex than conventional radar”).
Regarding claim 23, The combination of Lee and Amores, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Lee and Amores does not disclose the gesture is a macro gesture comprising a gross movement of a hand of a target or a micro gesture comprising a relative movement of a plurality of digits of the target. However, Lien in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the gesture is a macro gesture comprising a gross movement of a hand of a target or a micro gesture comprising a relative movement of a plurality of digits of the target (See at least [0046] “the micro-motion tracking module 308 may track micro-gestures having millimeter or finer resolution and a maximum of five centimeters in total relative displacement, or track a user's arm, hand or fingers relative to another hand, arm, or object, or larger gestures, such as multi-handed gestures with relative displacements of even a meter in size”).
Furthermore, 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 electronic device system disclosed by Lee with the gesture system disclosed by Amores with the gesture recognition system disclosed by Lien. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously create a more simple, less costly, or less complex solution (See at least [0029] “this radar system 202 can be simpler, less costly, or less complex than conventional radar”).
Regarding claim 24, The combination of Lee and Amores, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Lee and Amores does not disclose in response to detecting the gesture, modifying a user interface setting of the electronic device. However, Lien in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
in response to detecting the gesture, modifying a user interface setting of the electronic device (See at least [0056] “The gesture, on receipt by the application or device, is effective to control the application or device, such as to control or alter a display, function, or capability of the application or device”).
Furthermore, 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 electronic device system disclosed by Lee with the gesture system disclosed by Amores with the gesture recognition system disclosed by Lien. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously create a more simple, less costly, or less complex solution (See at least [0029] “this radar system 202 can be simpler, less costly, or less complex than conventional radar”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Resha H Desai can be reached on (571)270-7792. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights