DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicant’s arguments filled 11/10/2025 regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. and 103 rejections of claims 1-12 and 16-23 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 and similarly claim 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: In Claim 1 and similarly claim 16 the term “with tail picks removed” should read “with tail peaks removed.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 112
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 1-12 and 16-23 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 and similarly claims 2, 3, 16, 17, and 19 recite, “determining data corresponding to a coupling path between transmit(TX) and receive (RX) paths from the CIRs.” The phrase "determining data corresponding to" was not present in the claims originally filled. A review of the specification filled 09/27/2023 sets forth the term "determining data." Review of the specification reveals on page 10 line 1, “In a first step of the proposed method the coupled path hsτ,t is removed;” however, the examiner can find no explicit disclosure regarding the “determination or identification of coupling path data.” The removal of a specific data type does not implicitly encompass identification or “determination” of that data. It suggested that the Applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed "data corresponding to a coupling path." For examination purposes the phrase "determining data corresponding to" in claim 1 will be interpreted to mean " removing data corresponding to."
Claim 1 and similarly claim 16 recite, “applying an adaptive reinforcement filter to average a first peak of the CIRs for each of the repeatedly transmitted UWB signals without averaging other peaks”. The limitation was not present in the claims originally filled. A review of the specification filled 09/27/2023 sets forth the term "adaptive reinforcement filter." Review of the specification reveals, “The proposed method implements an adaptive way of building a confidence metric on the list of peaks to separate stationary targets from other movements in the environment” on page 11 line 1, “Figures 19 and 20 show that the proposed method with an implementation of adaptive reinforcement filtering and peak scaling as described above is capable of getting rid of tail peaks” on page 17 lines 6-7, and “Adaptively reinforce the confidence values on the selected peaks in steps 305, 306. The proposed method aims to detect stable peaks and adaptively updates a confidence metric across multiple windows which converges in stable peaks“ on page 18 lines 12-13. The specification discloses a process of building, adapting, and reinforcing peak confidence values; however, the Examiner can find no further clarification on the term “adaptive reinforcement filter,” or the claimed limitation as a whole. The specification fails to provide an explicit definition for the claimed “adaptive reinforcement filter” and does not disclose how the filter might relate to averaging CIR peaks. The Examiner does not find that adaptively building a confidence metric equates to the claimed limitation above. It suggested that the Applicant amend the claim to be consisted with the disclosed " adaptive reinforcement filter."
Claim 1 and similarly claim 16 recite, “scaling down the other peaks to produce filtered CIRs with tail picks removed.” The limitation was not present in the claims originally filled. A review of the specification filled 09/27/2023 sets forth the term "other peaks." Review of the specification reveals, “Figures 17 to 20 show results for two persons breathing with a capability of an algorithm of resolving two peaks by getting rid of tail peaks” on page on page 5 lines 11-12, and “Figures 19 and 20 show that the proposed method with an implementation of adaptive reinforcement filtering and peak scaling as described above is capable of getting rid of tail peaks,” on page 17 lines 6-7. The specification discloses peak scaling and removing tail peaks. The Examiner can find no disclosure regarding the withholding of the claimed “first peaks” from the scaling processes or an explicit definition of the claims “other peaks.” Figures 17, 19, and 20 fail to disclose that “first peaks” are withheld from scaling. It suggested that the Applicant amend the claim to be consisted with the disclosed "peak scaling."
Claims 2-12 and 17-23 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
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 1-12 and 16-23 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 and similarly claim 16, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation, “applying an adaptive reinforcement filter to average a first peak of the CIRs for each of the repeatedly transmitted UWB signals without averaging other peaks.” As claimed the term “adaptive reinforcement filter “ is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. An “adaptive reinforcement filter” is not a standard or commonly known filter in the art and is considered “new terminology” with respect to the prior art. MPEP 2173.05(a)(I) requires that the meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Review of the specification reveals, “The proposed method implements an adaptive way of building a confidence metric on the list of peaks to separate stationary targets from other movements in the environment,” on page 11 line 1, “Figures 19 and 20 show that the proposed method with an implementation of adaptive reinforcement filtering and peak scaling as described above is capable of getting rid of tail peaks” on page 17 lines 6-7, and “Adaptively reinforce the confidence values on the selected peaks in steps 305, 306. The proposed method aims to detect stable peaks and adaptively updates a confidence metric across multiple windows which converges in stable peaks“ on page 18 lines 12-13. The specification discloses an adaptive process for building confidence metrics and adaptively reinforcing confidence values; however, the Examiner cannot find an explicit definition of the term “adaptive reinforcement filtering” or a disclosure of the structure and use of said filter. The claims, read in light of the specification, do not reasonably apprise one skilled in the art both of the utilization and scope of the invention, rendering the new terminology indefinite (see, MEPE 2173.05(a)(I)). It is suggested that the applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “adaptive reinforcement filter.” For examination purposes the term “adaptive reinforcement filter” will be interpreted to mean a process of adaptively reinforcing the confidence values.
Regarding claim 1 and similarly claim 16, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation, “average a first peak of the CIRs for each of the repeatedly transmitted UWB signals without averaging other peaks.” As claimed the term “a first peak of the CIRs” is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. It is unclear if “a first peak of the CIRs” refers to the first peak in each individual CIR or the first peak in the each set of CIRs associated with each UWB transmission. Review of the specification reveals “wherein clutter removed channel impulse responses, CIRs, are averaged within one window,” on page 3 lines 7-8, and “The proposed method then performs a peak search on the confidence metric p(x), sorts the peaks based on their magnitude and picks the first M peaks, if M is a maximum number of targets, which are intended to be detected” on page 15 lines 9-11. The Examiner does find not find an explicit definition of the term “a first peak of the CIRs” or disclosure clarifying which peaks are averaged and which peaks are not averaged. It is suggested that the applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “first peak of the CIRs.” For examination purposes the limitation “first peak of the CIRs” will be interpreted refer to the first peak in the each set of CIRs associated with each UWB transmission.
Regarding claim 1 and similarly claim 16, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the limitation, “scaling down the other peaks to produce filtered CIRs with tail picks removed.” It is apparent that the term “picks” is intended to mean “peaks.” As claimed, the limitation “with tail peaks removed” is excessively broad in nature and the meets and bounds of the claimed limitation cannot be ascertained by one skilled in the art. It is unclear if the limitation implies that the claimed “scaling process” removes tail peaks from the CIRs or if the tail peaks are excluded from the scaling process entirely. Review of the specification reveals on page 17 line 7, “peak scaling as described above is capable of getting rid of tail peaks.” It suggested applicant amend the claims to be consistent with the disclosed “tail peaks.” For examination purposes the limitation “scaling down the other peaks to produce filtered CIRs with tail picks removed” will be interpreted to mean that the scaling process removes tail peaks from the CIRs.
Regarding claim 3 and similarly claim 17, it is not clear of what encompasses and is meant by the term “subtracting one reference.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the claimed reference signal. For examination purposes the limitation “subtracting one reference” as recited in claims 3 and 17 will be read “subtracting a reference.”
Claims 2-12 and 17-23 are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 and 16-23 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office action.
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 CLAYTON PAUL RIDDER whose telephone number is (571)272-2771. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 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, Jack Keith can be reached on (571)-272-6878. 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.
/C.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3646
/JACK W KEITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3646