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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 31 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 – 4, 10 – 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive, in light of the amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Stancer et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0277815 – previously cited) in view of Rimini et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0055386).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 6, 10 – 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stancer et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0277815 – previously cited) in view of Rimini et al. (US PGPUB 2021/0055386).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Stancer discloses an electronic device and a method, comprising: a radio frequency (RF) transceiver (e.g. ¶ 24 and 28); and a processor configured to: obtain sensor data from a sensor of the electronic device (e.g. ¶ 35 and 45); detect electromagnetic interference (EMI) risk based on the sensor data obtained (e.g. ¶ 35 – 37); determine whether a condition for executing an EMI risk mitigation function is satisfied, based on the detected EMI risk (e.g. ¶ 35 – 37); and in response to determining that the condition for executing the EMI risk mitigation function is satisfied, performing the EMI risk mitigation function (e.g. ¶ 35 – 37; switch to the EMI operating mode). Stancer fails to teach that detecting EMI risk is based on at least one of radar data or IMU data among the sensor data obtained.
Rimini teaches a wireless electronic device that obtains sensor data from an onboard sensor, including radar reflections, detects that a nearby object is a person by extracting vital signs from the radar data, and determines whether a proximity condition is satisfied (e.g. ¶ 26 – 29). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention as taught by Stancer with the radar data as taught by Rimini, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of using the known radar based vital sign detection for detecting EMI risk and performing mitigation as necessary.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Stancer discloses at least one of: adjusting a radio frequency (RF) transmit power; and outputting an alert that warns a user of the electronic device about a pacemaker in relation to the detected EMI risk (e.g. ¶ 52).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Stancer discloses in response to determining that the condition for executing the EMI risk mitigation function is not satisfied, operating the electronic device without executing the EMI risk mitigation function (e.g. ¶ 51).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Stancer discloses detecting the EMI risk further comprises estimating a distance to a heart of a user of the electronic device; and determining whether the condition for executing an EMI risk mitigation function is satisfied further comprises determining whether the distance to the heart satisfies a proximity condition.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 15, and 16, Stancer discloses the invention as previously discussed, but fails to teach obtaining radar data into a sliding input data window that includes recent radar frames from the radar data… filtering the data window to pass through a subset of the radar data that matches a typical frequency range of a heartbeat…. and detecting the heartbeat is present based on a determination that an energy of the subset of the radar data satisfies a threshold energy condition.
Rimini teaches a wireless electronic device that obtains sensor data from an onboard sensor, including radar reflections, detects that a nearby object is a person by extracting vital signs from the radar data, and determines whether a proximity condition is satisfied (e.g. ¶ 26 – 29). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention as taught by Stancer with the radar data as taught by Rimini, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of using the known radar based vital sign detection for detecting EMI risk and performing mitigation as necessary.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Stancer discloses detecting the EMI risk based on identifying a setting in which pacemaker compatibility is activated (e.g. ¶ 35 – 37).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 – 9 and 17 – 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 17, and 18, the prior art fails to teach obtaining inertial measurement unit data corresponding to a sliding input data window… classifying the IMU data as one from among a set of EMI risk classes… determining that the condition for executing the EMI risk mitigation function is satisfied or not satisfied based on wehre the IMU data is classified, along with the other limitations of independent claims 1 and 11.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, the prior art fails to teach when the primary sensor includes both radar and IMU, operate the electronic device without executing the EMI risk mitigation function, and when the primary sensor does not include both the radar and the IMU, obtain second sensor data from a secondary sensor, the secondary sensor being different from the primary sensor and being the IMU when the primary sensor is the radar, and the secondary sensor being the radar when the primary sensor is the IMU, along with the other limitations of the claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M DIETRICH whose telephone number is (571)270-1895. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/JOSEPH M DIETRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
