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, filed 04/09/2026, regarding claims 1, 9, and 22 have been entered into the record and are persuasive. The applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1,9 , and 22 overcome the rejection set out in the previous office action. Claims 1, 3-8, and 22 are allowable. However, claims 9, 12-18, and 21 stand rejected because, upon further consideration, the amendments to claim 9 do not render claim 9 non-obvious over Badic in view of Ng.
Regarding claim 9, the examiner agrees with the applicant’s argument that Badic describes reducing transmit power for human objects detected close to the device. However, Badic teaches using the Doppler information to determine whether the blocking object is human. Ng teaches maintaining transmit power for non-human objects detected close to the device, i.e., maintaining transmit power based on Doppler information indicative of the external object being on or off a surface of a housing enclosing the wireless circuitry. The language of claim 9 does not require that the Doppler information be used to first determine that the object is animate and on the surface and then maintain or increase the maximum power level—it requires only that the Doppler information be used in conjunction with the detected external object being on or off of the surface to inform the maximum power adjustment. Thus, a determination that the blocking object is not a human based on the Doppler information, thus resulting in no change to maximum transmit power level, is within the scope of the claim as it is currently written.
The examiner does agree with the applicant that amending claim 9 to indicate that the distance determination is binary (on/off) rather than simply a determination of whether the object is on the surface of the housing does differentiate the claimed invention from the invention of Ng, since Ng uses four gradations of distance from the object. However, the examiner holds that using the distance from the radar device to its housing as D4 is obvious in view of the teachings of Ng. Ng teaches that the predetermined range of claim 9 can be represented as one value or a range of values, and gives 0-4 cm as an example of an appropriate range of values (see col. 15). Considering that Ng three gradations of the total predetermined range D0, given as D1, D2, and D-3, suggests 0-4 cm as an appropriate value for the total range D0-, suggests that the object can be a hand or other body part of a user when the electronic device is being used (col. 8, lines 33-36), and suggests that animacy should only be determined for objects measured as being within D3- of the radar device (fig. 13), making the threshold value D3 equal to the distance from the radar device to a user using the device (i.e., in physical contact with the housing) is an obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.05, which discusses both overlapping and close ranges as rendering one invention obvious over another.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badic et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0175919 A1), hereinafter Badic, in view of Ng et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 1594807 B2), hereinafter Ng.
Regarding claim 9, Badic teaches,
A method of operating wireless circuitry, the method comprising: transmitting, using a transmitter, radar signals (para. 0246, “Radar controller 3516 may be configured to transmit radio signals via RF transceiver 3504 and antenna system 3502”); receiving, using a receiver, reflected radar signals (para. 0246, “Radar controller 3516 may be configured…to receive the resulting reflected radio signals after the transmitted radio signals reflect back off objects.”); and adjusting, using one or more processors, a maximum transmit power level of the transmitter based on Doppler information generated from the reflected radar signals (fig. 36, step 3610, noting that para. 0255 states that Doppler information is used to determine whether a human object is present in a sector. See also para. 0229), the Doppler information being associated with an external object (p. 36, step 3606, noting para. 0255, “Radar controller 3516 may therefore detect the Doppler and micro-Doppler effects in the reflected signal and, based thereon, may determine that the blocking object is a human object.”)
Ng teaches,
…adjusting, using one or more processors, a maximum transmit power level of the transmitter based on Doppler information generated from the reflected radar signals, the Doppler information being associated with an external object and indicative of the external object being on or off a surface of a housing that encloses the wireless circuitry (fig. 8 shows Doppler FFT being used to determine range, fig. 13 shows that the range is used to determine the position of the object relative to the radar device, ), wherein adjusting the maximum transmit power level includes maintaining or increasing, using the one or more processors, the maximum transmit power level while the Doppler information is indicative of the external object being on the surface (col. 20, “For example, the electronic device 200 applies the MPE operation by identifying a first antenna array from the plurality of antenna arrays that is closer to the object than a second antenna array from the plurality of antenna arrays based on the position of the object relative to the electronic device and reduces a power level for the first antenna array in order to reduce a power density in proximity to the object, and increases a power level for the second antenna to compensate at least in part for a reduction in the power level for the first antenna array.” See also fig. 13, step 1380, which indicates that no MPE action is taken for objects that are close to the surface of the housing and non-human/non-living).
Badic and Ng are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Badic with the transmit powers of Ng because the distance-based transmit power determination of Ng ensures that total transmit power is high enough to ensure clear transmissions without causing injury to humans using the device. In other words, the process of Ng ensures that compensating for human presence does not impede the transmission quality.
Regarding claim 11, Badic in view of Ng teaches the method of claim 9. Badic does not teach,
…wherein adjusting the maximum transmit power level comprises: reducing, using the one or more processors, the maximum transmit power level while the Doppler information is indicative of the external object being off a surface of the wireless circuitry.
Ng teaches,
…wherein adjusting the maximum transmit power level comprises: reducing, using the one or more processors, the maximum transmit power level while the Doppler information is indicative of the external object being off a surface of the wireless circuitry (col. 20, “For example, the electronic device 200 applies the MPE operation by identifying a first antenna array from the plurality of antenna arrays that is closer to the object than a second antenna array from the plurality of antenna arrays based on the position of the object relative to the electronic device and reduces a power level for the first antenna array in order to reduce a power density in proximity to the object, and increases a power level for the second antenna to compensate at least in part for a reduction in the power level for the first antenna array.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Badic with the transmit powers of Ng because the distance-based transmit power determination of Ng ensures that total transmit power is high enough to ensure clear transmissions without causing injury to humans using the device. In other words, the process of Ng ensures that compensating for human presence does not impede the transmission quality.
Regarding claim 13, Badic in view of Ng teaches the method of claim 9. Badic does not teach,
…generating, using the one or more processors, a set of Channel Impulse Response (CIR) vectors in the Doppler information based on the reflected radar signals
Ng teaches,
…generating, using the one or more processors, a set of Channel Impulse Response (CIR) vectors in the Doppler information based on the reflected radar signals (col. 14, “Otherwise, the distance of the detected object from the radar module is estimated from the radar signals reflected off the object, which can be in the form of CIR.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Badic with the CIR vectors of Ng because using CIR to detect distance is a well-known technique in the art that would be appropriate to use with the system of Badic.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badic in view of Ng and further in view of Regev et al. (Regev N, Wulich D. Radar-Based, Simultaneous Human Presence Detection and Breathing Rate Estimation. Sensors (Basel). 2021 May 19;21(10):3529. doi: 10.3390/s21103529.), hereinafter Regev.
Regarding claim 12, Badic in view of Ng teaches the method of claim 9. Badic further teaches (note: what Badic does not teach is struck through),
…wherein the Doppler information comprises a Doppler signature of the external object and adjusting the maximum transmit power level comprises: reducing the maximum transmit power level when a human is detected (fig. 36, step 3606)
Regev teaches detecting human presence based on a width metric of a Doppler signature exceeding a threshold value (p. 2, para. 2, “The feasibility of using breathing to detect presence was proven in [5,6], where they showed that a mechanical target which simulates a breathing human can be detected in a room with 93% accuracy by using a Doppler radar with a threshold on the root mean square (RMS) of the received signal” The examiner notes that RMS is a width metric).
Regev is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Badic with the Doppler width-based human presence detection of Regev. Badic teaches using micro-Doppler effects to determine whether a human is present, but is silent as to the specific method of doing so. The method of Regev is one way of using micro-Doppler effects to detect human presence, and allows for the detection of even the smallest motions, thus increasing the likelihood that a blocking object will be correctly detected as human.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badic in view of Ng and further in view of Regev.
Regarding claim 14, Badic in view of Ng teaches the method of claim 13. Badic does not teach,
…further comprising: generating, using the one or more processors, a range-Doppler map in the Doppler information based on the CIR vectors
Ng teaches using CIR vectors of Doppler information to detect range but does not teach generating a range-Doppler map (col. 14, “Otherwise, the distance of the detected object from the radar module is estimated from the radar signals reflected off the object, which can be in the form of CIR.”).
Regev teaches,
…further comprising: generating, using the one or more processors, a range-Doppler map in the Doppler information based on the CIR vectors (p. 4, para. 2, “Next, each column spectrum is calculated using the fast Fourier transform (FFT), generating a range-Doppler map.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Badic with the CIR vectors of Ng because using CIR to detect distance is a well-known technique in the art that would be appropriate to use with the system of Badic. It would have been further been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ng with the range-Doppler map of Regev because the range-Doppler map of Regev enables separating multiple targets detected by the radar, allowing the radar to be used in systems with more than one target.
Regarding claim 15, Badic in view of Ng and further in view of Regev teaches the method of claim 14. Badic does not teach,
…further comprising: detecting, using the one or more processors, a range to the external object based on the range-Doppler map
Regev teaches,
…further comprising: detecting, using the one or more processors, a range to the external object based on the range-Doppler map (p. 4, para. 3, “A maximum peak is then searched for inside the range Doppler map, and its corresponding range-bin is declared as the range bin of the target.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Badic with the range-Doppler map of Regev because the map of Regev allows for the detection of multiple objects, differentiating between them. Using said map to detect objects would thus increase the accuracy of the measurements of Badic by allowing for multiple objects to be identified and differentiated between in radar data, which is commonly needed in real-world scenarios.
Regarding claim 16, Badic in view of Ng and further in view of Regev teaches the method of claim 14. Badic does not teach,
…extracting, using the one or more processors, a Doppler vector from the range-Doppler map; and accumulating, using the one or more processors, the Doppler vector with additional Doppler vectors to generate a time-Doppler map (p. 3, para., 6, “If we wait T seconds in slow time or K frames we will get a slow time vs. fast-time matrix of size 𝐾×𝑁𝑟𝑔, in which each row is a radar frame and each column is the change of radar return amplitude over T seconds (and K radar frames) of slow time. If we know the specific range bin in which the breathing phenomenon is present and extract this column, then we will get a slow time signal that is periodic with a fundamental breathing frequency 𝑓𝑏.”).
Regev teaches,
…extracting, using the one or more processors, a Doppler vector from the range-Doppler map; and accumulating, using the one or more processors, the Doppler vector with additional Doppler vectors to generate a time-Doppler map (p. 3, para. 6, “If we wait T seconds in slow time or K frames we will get a slow time vs. fast-time matrix of size 𝐾×𝑁𝑟𝑔, in which each row is a radar frame and each column is the change of radar return amplitude over T seconds (and K radar frames) of slow time. If we know the specific range bin in which the breathing phenomenon is present and extract this column, then we will get a slow time signal that is periodic with a fundamental breathing frequency 𝑓𝑏.”).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Badic with the time-Doppler map of Regev because the time-Doppler map of Regev enables the detection of micro-Doppler effects such as breathing, thus increasing the likelihood that an interfering object will correctly be identified as human or not human, and therefore increasing the safety of the system.
Regarding claim 17, Badic in view of Ng and further in view of Regev teaches the method of claim 16. Badic further teaches using micro-Doppler effects to determine human presence and adjusting the maximum transmit power of a system based on human presence detection (fig. 36, steps 3606-3610 and “specifically, when a human object is placed in front of antenna system 3502, natural body tremors will cause unique Doppler effects in the reflected signal, and the reflected signal will have phase and frequency variations. Radar controller 3516 may therefore detect the Doppler and micro-Doppler effects in the reflected signal and, based thereon, may determine that the blocking object is a human object.”). Badic does not teach,
…identifying, using the one or more processors, a feature of the time-Doppler map, wherein adjusting the maximum transmit power level comprises adjusting the maximum transmit power level based on the identified feature of the time-Doppler map.
Regev teaches,
…identifying, using the one or more processors, a feature of the time-Doppler map, wherein adjusting the maximum transmit power level comprises adjusting the maximum transmit power level based on the identified feature of the time-Doppler map (p. 3, para. 7, “If we know the specific range bin in which the breathing phenomenon is present and extract this column, then we will get a slow time signal that is periodic with a fundamental breathing frequency 𝑓” The examiner notes that breathing detection is used to determine human presence. See also figs. 7-9).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Badic with the time-Doppler map of Regev because the time-Doppler map of Regev enables the detection of micro-Doppler effects such as breathing, thus increasing the likelihood that an interfering object will correctly be identified as human or not human, and therefore increasing the safety of the system.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badic in view of Ng, further in view of Regev, and further in view of Kalyanaraman et al. (A. Kalyanaraman, E. Soltanaghaei and K. Whitehouse, "Doorpler: A Radar-Based System for Real-Time, Low Power Zone Occupancy Sensing," 2019 IEEE Real-Time and Embedded Technology and Applications Symposium (RTAS), Montreal, QC, Canada, 2019, pp. 42-53, doi: 10.1109/RTAS.2019.00012), hereinafter Kalyanaraman.
Regarding claim 18, Badic teaches reducing maximum transmit power level when human presence is detected (fig. 36). Badic does not teach,
…wherein the identified feature comprises a width metric of the time-Doppler map and adjusting the maximum transmit power level comprises reducing the maximum transmit power level while the width metric exceeds a threshold value
Kalyanaraman teaches using a width metric of a time-Doppler map to determine human presence (p. 45, left col., para. 2, “Next, it obtains the envelope of the filtered signal, and detects a crossing only when the envelope power is larger than a threshold (set as 5 times the noise-floor). Fig. 1 shows the envelope power of the Doppler filtered signal for 12 doorway crossings. We can clearly see that the envelope power during a crossing is much larger than that during a crossing absence.”).
Thus, the combination of Badic in view of Ng, further in view of Regev, and further in view of Kalyanaraman teaches,
…wherein the identified feature comprises a width metric of the time-Doppler map and adjusting the maximum transmit power level comprises reducing the maximum transmit power level while the width metric exceeds a threshold value
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Badic with the width metric of Kalyanaraman because the width metric of Kalyanaraman requires minimal computational power (see Kalyanaraman, p. 45, left col., para. 2), thus making it easier to accurately detect human presence.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-8, and 22 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Ng et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 1594807 B2), hereinafter Ng, Islam et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0356980 A1), hereinafter Islam, and Badic et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0175919 A1), hereinafter Badic, are the closest prior art to the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, Ng teaches (note: what Ng does not teach is struck through),
Wireless circuitry (fig. 4, radar device 400) comprising: circuitry configured to transmit radar signals and to receive reflected radar signals (fig. 4,radar device 400); one or more processors configured to detect, based on the reflected radar signals, whether an external object is on or off a surface of a housing that encloses the wireless circuitry (fig. 9, step 930, nothing that the reference does not specify the values of D0-D4, but that it would be reasonable to have one of these values indicate that the radar is on the surface) and whether the external object is animate (fig. 13); and a transmitter configured to transmit wireless signals with a first maximum transmit power level while the external object is detected at a first distance (fig. 13, step 1360, noting that a suggested range of values for a range d is given as 0-4 cm from the surface of the device. The examiner notes that col. 9 indicates, “According to embodiments of this disclosure, the different MPE operations can correspond to different power back-offs, such that the transmit power can be reduced in steps when the object is detected to be approaching the module, and vice versa.”), and transmit the wireless signals with a second maximum transmit power level, less than the first maximum transmit power level, while the external object is detected at a second distance (fig. 13, step 1340).
Islam teaches,
…a transmitter configured to transmit wireless signals with a first maximum transmit power level while the external object is detected on the surface (para. 0078, “increasing the transmit power while using fewer antenna elements to extend the range of the antenna beam.” The examiner notes that Islam teaches that fewer antenna elements are used when a hand is detected on the surface of said antenna elements)…and transmit the wireless signals with a second maximum transmit power level while the external object is detected off the surface (para. 0078, “decreasing transmit power when additional antenna elements of the antenna array are determined to be free because the user moved her hand”).
Badic teaches determining whether a blocking object is animate. However, both Ng and Badic explicitly teach against the first transmit power being higher than the second transmit power for an object that is both animate and on the surface of the device. Therefore, it would not be obvious to modify Ng to increase the transmit power for an animate object detected on the surface of the device.
Claims 2-8 are allowable because they depend upon, and thus include all the limitations of, claim 1.
Claim 22 is allowable for much the same reasons as claim 1. The method of claim 22 as whole requires that a higher transmit power is used with an object detected on the surface of the radar device is animate. This is directly in contrast to the teachings of Ng, Islam, and Badic, thus rendering the combination of limitations of claim 22 allowable over the prior art made of record.
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 Anna K Gosling whose telephone number is (571)272-0401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30-4:30 Eastern, Friday, 10:00-2:00 Eastern.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571) 270-5144. 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.
/Anna K. Gosling/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights