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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/19/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note
To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. An explanation is provided below.
Regarding Independent Claims 1, 15 and 18
Applicant alleges on p.8:
Claim 1 recites "determine a range of a person nearest to the FMCW radar sensor from the multidimensional array representation of the radar data." (Emphasis added.) The Examiner acknowledges that Saboo does not disclose the limitation of "nearest to the FMCW radar sensor," but asserts that this limitation is disclose by paragraph [0350] of Va that states, "If there are at least one peak detected, then the peak may be associated with a tracked target using the closest distance as the criterion." (Office Action, page 4.) Applicant respectfully disagrees. This passage does not teach determining a range of a person nearest to the FMCW radar sensor. Rather, Va teaches associating a newly detected peak with an already-tracked target based on which tracked target is closest to that peak. The "closest distance" in Va refers to the distance between a detected peak and existing tracked targets for purposes of target association-it is not a determination of which person among multiple people is nearest to the radar sensor itself. The Examiner's citation thus fails to supply the missing "nearest to the FMCW radar sensor" limitation. Applicant, therefore respectfully submits that claim 1 is patentable over Saboo and Va and is allowable.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Va teaches in para. 0228 “the target is the nearest moving object. In such example, this can be easily seen for the tracking of the hand for a gesture recognition problem.” And further says in para. 0293 “as described earlier, the desired target tends to be the closest moving object to the radar.” As such, Va identifies the nearest object. Applicant’s argument is therefore unpersuasive.
Regarding Dependent Claims 3, 17 and 20
Applicant alleges on p.11:
The Examiner relies on Saboo paragraph [0041] for the limitation of "selecting the entry in the predefined sub-range having the shortest range to the FMCW radar sensor and being consistently detected over multiple frames." (Office Action, page 5.). Saboo paragraph [0041] states that "[w]eighted angle is a single number representative of the average angle over the estimated location of the gesture in the 2D FFT grids. More specifically, weighted angle quantifies the angle content in the region of bins corresponding to the estimated location of the gesture." This passage describes computing a weighted angle metric for gesture recognition purposes-it does not teach selecting an entry that is "consistently detected over multiple frames" as an entry representing the person nearest to the radar sensor. Applicant, therefore, respectfully submits that claim 3 is patentable over the cited art and is allowable
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Saboo in view of Va teach detection ‘over multiple frames’ as an entry representing the person nearest to the radar sensor. For instance, Va teaches in the Abstract “a peak of the received signals in a current time slot, determining whether the peak in the current time slot corresponds to a tracked target” and in para. 0289 “If the flag is false in step 3404, it means that the target being tracked was not detected in the current time slot or frame.”. Thus, there is a consistent detection ‘over multiple frames’. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding Dependent Claim 6
Applicant alleges on p.12:
Saboo . . . does not disclose that this angle FFT is being used to determine a gesture detection zone. Moreover, Saboo does not disclose that the angle FFT mentioned in paragraph [0027] is based on the computed weighted angle discussed in paragraph [0041]. Hence, Saboo cannot disclose the limitation of defining "the gesture detection zone by defining a second sub-range in the range-angle representation of the radar data
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Saboo teaches the angle calculations are based on a weight as shown in para. 0034 “The thresholds may include a weighted velocity threshold used for filtering computed weighted velocities and respective amplitude thresholds used in computing weighted velocity and weighted angle”. The angle calculations determine a detection zones as explained by Saboo in para. 0354 “the angular domain allows the separation among these users and the tracking to produce the features for the gesture recognition can be done for each user separately.”. As such, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Regarding Dependent Claim 8
The Examiner relies on Saboo paragraph [0051], which states: "If no peaks are detected, the process continues. If one or more peaks are identified, relevant parameters are extracted for each identified peak to be used for gesture classification." (Office Action, page 8). This passage describes the continuation of peak detection processing and parameter extraction for gesture classification. It does not teach continuously determining the range of the nearest person and dynamically updating a gesture detection zone based on that continuously determined range.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees due to reasoning above for dependent claim 3.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10, 13-15, 17-18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saboo et al. (US 20160252607 hereinafter Saboo) in view of Va et al. (US 20210011147 hereinafter Va).
Regarding claim 1, Saboo teaches An apparatus for gesture detection, comprising (title):
interface circuitry configured to receive radar data indicating one or more measurement signals of a Frequency-Modulated Continuous-Wave (FMCW) radar sensor (title); and
processing circuitry coupled to the interface circuitry and being configured to: determine a multidimensional array representation of the radar data (0006 “In one aspect, a frequency modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar system is provided that includes a small receive antenna array,”),
determine a range of a person (0022 “or example, the DSP 104 may perform signal processing on the digital signals to extract the range and velocity of objects in the view of the radar. In this context, range refers to the distance of an object from the radar and velocity refers to the relative speed of the object with respect to the radar.”; 0062 “For example, in the above mentioned industrial setting application, the position cue could be a person standing in a location other than the defined region where objects are expected.”),
define a gesture detection zone based on the determined range of the person (0012 “FIG. 5 is an example of a 2D FFT grid with an estimated gesture location;”),
the gesture detection zone covering exclusively ranges up to the determined range of the person (0038 “Once the location of the gesture is estimated in the 2D FFT grid, the weighted velocity and weighted angle for the frame is computed 307 within the estimated location. Weighted velocity is a single number that quantifies the velocity of the hand performing the gesture with respect to the radar.”),
search exclusively the gesture detection zone for hand movements of the person (0038 “Once the location of the gesture is estimated in the 2D FFT grid, the weighted velocity and weighted angle for the frame is computed 307 within the estimated location. Weighted velocity is a single number that quantifies the velocity of the hand performing the gesture with respect to the radar.”);
in response to a hand movement of the person being detected in the gesture detection zone, extract a time-series of one or more features of the hand movement (0048 “Note that the above steps compute a sequence of weighted velocities over time. Each gesture to be recognized has a distinct weighted velocity sequence, i.e., signature, which can be used to identify the gesture. FIGS. 6A, 6B, and 6C are examples of velocity signatures for, respectively, a “go” gesture, a “come” gesture, and a wave gesture.”); and
determine a gesture of the person based on the time-series of the one or more features of the hand movement (claim 3 “performing gesture classification based on parameters of the at least one peak to determine whether or not the at least one peak is indicative of a gesture.”).
Saboo does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Va teaches determine a range of a person nearest to the FMCW radar sensor from the multidimensional array representation of the radar data (0350 “If there are at least one peak detected, then the peak may be associated with a tracked target using the closest distance as the criterion.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Va with the teachings of Saboo. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar accuracy (Va 0297). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Va merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features. Since both Va and Saboo disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the multidimensional array representation of the radar data is a range-angle representation of the radar data (Saboo 0027 “A third FFT, i.e., an angle FFT, is performed across the 2D FFT grids (the range-Doppler arrays) for each antenna. Processing of the data from the 2D FFT grid across multiple antennas helps in resolving objects that may have a similar range and similar relative velocity but a different angle with respect to the radar. Note that as used herein, angle may refer to either the azimuth angle and/or the elevation angle”); and
the processing circuitry is configured to determine the range of the person nearest to the FMCW radar sensor by: searching for entries having an amplitude above a first amplitude threshold in a predefined first sub-range in the range-angle representation of the radar data (Saboo 0034 “For example, the weighted velocity amplitude threshold may be determined such that 90% of the values in the 2D FFT grid lie below the threshold. In another example, the weighted angle amplitude threshold may be determined such that 95% of the values of the 2D FFT grid lie below the threshold.”),
the predefined first sub-range covering exclusively angles below a predefined angle threshold, selecting the entry in the predefined sub-range having the shortest range to the FMCW radar sensor and being consistently detected over multiple frames to be an entry representing the person nearest to the FMCW radar sensor, and determining the range of the selected entry to be the range of the person nearest to the FMCW radar sensor (Saboo 0041 “Weighted angle is a single number representative of the average angle over the estimated location of the gesture in the 2D FFT grids. More specifically, weighted angle quantifies the angle content in the region of bins corresponding to the estimated location of the gesture”).
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: define the gesture detection zone by defining a second sub-range in a range-Doppler representation of the radar data (Saboo 0024 “a Doppler FFT is performed over each of the corresponding range values of the chirps in the frame. That is, a Doppler FFT is performed on each of the M columns of the N×M range-time array. The peaks in the resulting N×M range-Doppler plane, also referred to as a range-Doppler array or range-Doppler slice, correspond to the range and relative speed (velocity) of objects.”), the second sub-range covering exclusively ranges within the gesture detection zone (Saboo fig 5); and search exclusively the gesture detection zone for hand movements of the person by searching exclusively in the second sub-range for hand movements of the person (Saboo 0038 “Once the location of the gesture is estimated in the 2D FFT grid, the weighted velocity and weighted angle for the frame is computed 307 within the estimated location. Weighted velocity is a single number that quantifies the velocity of the hand performing the gesture with respect to the radar. More specifically, weighted velocity quantifies the velocity content in the region of bins corresponding to the estimated location of the gesture. Any suitable technique may be used to compute the weighted velocity.”).
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to select an entry having an amplitude above a second amplitude threshold in the second sub-range as an entry representing the hand movements of the person (Saboo 0034 “Values of various thresholds needed for subsequent computations are also determined 304 based on the input signal and noise levels. The thresholds may include a weighted velocity threshold used for filtering computed weighted velocities and respective amplitude thresholds”).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine an angle of the person nearest to the FMCW radar sensor in a range-angle representation of the radar data (Saboo 0041 “weighted angle quantifies the angle content in the region of bins corresponding to the estimated location of the gesture.”); define the gesture detection zone by defining a second sub-range in the range-angle representation of the radar data based on the determined angle of the person nearest to the FMCW radar sensor, the second sub-range covering exclusively ranges and angles within the gesture detection zone (Saboo 0027 “A third FFT, i.e., an angle FFT, is performed across the 2D FFT grids (the range-Doppler arrays) for each antenna. Processing of the data from the 2D FFT grid across multiple antennas helps in resolving objects that may have a similar range and similar relative velocity but a different angle with respect to the radar.”); search exclusively the gesture detection zone for hand movements of the person by searching exclusively in the second sub-range for hand movements of the person (Saboo 0026 “More specifically, an object detection algorithm (which may be executed on the DSP 104 or another processor) operates by detecting the peaks in the 2D FFT grids of the two antennas. The object detection may be followed by a tracking algorithm that tracks the detected objects (peaks) across consecutive frames.”).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to select an entry having an amplitude above a second amplitude threshold in the second sub-range to be entry representing the hand movements of the person (Saboo 0039 “The resulting list of maximum amplitudes w(i.sub.v) is then pruned to include only those indices i.sub.v such that w(i.sub.v) is greater than the weighted velocity amplitude threshold. This subset of indices is denoted as i′.”; 0041 “First, the maximum amplitude of all the bins between the range indices of r.sub.min and r.sub.max for each velocity index i.sub.r between −v.sub.max and v.sub.max is computed”).
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: continuously determine the range of the person nearest to the FMCW radar sensor; and dynamically update the gesture detection zone based on the continuously determined range of the person nearest to the FMCW radar sensor (Saboo 0051 “If no peaks are detected, the process continues. If one or more peaks are identified, relevant parameters are extracted for each identified peak to be used for gesture classification”).
Regarding claim 10, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry further is configured to determine a size of the gesture detection zone based on the determined range of the person (Saboo 0036 “”One technique for estimating the limits of the range bins, i.e., r.sub.min and r.sub.max, is now described. If the span or range of a gesture is given by L, this range corresponds to consecutive range indices. The value of is determined by dividing the range L by the range resolution of the radar.).
Regarding claim 13, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the one or more features of the hand movement is exclusively a respective physical quantity describing the hand movements (Saboo 0038 “Weighted velocity is a single number that quantifies the velocity of the hand performing the gesture with respect to the radar.”).
Regarding claim 14, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine the multidimensional array representation of the radar data using moving target indication processing to suppress static targets in the multidimensional array representation of the FMCW radar sensor (Va 0247 “A range Doppler map is obtained by computing the Fourier transform (e.g., using the Fast Fourier Transform, FFT, algorithm) along the slow time domain of the radar signal. The range Doppler map is a rendering of the raw radar signals into a 2D map with the distance to the radar (range) in one dimension and the speed (Doppler) in the other dimension. In the application here, most of the background reflections (everything else beside the hand) can be expected to have low Doppler. Thus, one simple way to get rid of all these background signals is to null out low Doppler bins (e.g., the zero Doppler bin or, the zero Doppler bin and ±1 Doppler bins) in the range Doppler map.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Va with the teachings of Saboo. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar accuracy (Va 0297). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Va merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features. Since both Va and Saboo disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim(s) 2, 11, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saboo et al. (US 20160252607 hereinafter Saboo) in view of Va et al. (US 20210011147 hereinafter Va) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baheti et al. (US 20200026361 hereinafter Baheti).
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the multidimensional array representation of the radar data is a range-Doppler representation of the radar data (Va 0282 “A simple method to do this is to estimate the Doppler as the Doppler index of the bin with the higher power in the range Doppler map at the detected first peak tap index as shown in FIG. 33.”); and
the processing circuitry is configured to determine the range of the person nearest to the FMCW radar sensor by searching for entries (Va 0350 “If there are at least one peak detected, then the peak may be associated with a tracked target using the closest distance as the criterion.”) having an amplitude above a first amplitude threshold in a predefined first sub-range in the range-Doppler representation of the radar data (Saboo 0031 “2D FFT is computed 302 for each signal. Further, the amplitudes of the corresponding bins of the multiple 2D FFT grids are averaged to produce a single matrix F (an averaged 2D grid) to be used for weighted velocity and weighted angle computations.”; 0034 “The thresholds may include a weighted velocity threshold used for filtering computed weighted velocities and respective amplitude thresholds used in computing weighted velocity and weighted angle.”),
the predefined first sub-range covering exclusively non-zero velocities below a predefined velocity threshold (Saboo 0034 “The thresholds may include a weighted velocity threshold used for filtering computed weighted velocities and respective amplitude thresholds used in computing weighted velocity and weighted angle. For example, the weighted velocity amplitude threshold may be determined such that 90% of the values in the 2D FFT grid lie below the threshold.”),
determining the range of the selected entry to be the range of the person nearest to the FMCW radar sensor (Saboo 0022 “the DSP 104 may perform signal processing on the digital signals to extract the range and velocity of objects in the view of the radar. In this context, range refers to the distance of an object from the radar and velocity refers to the relative speed of the object with respect to the radar.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Va with the teachings of Saboo. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar accuracy (Va 0297). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Va merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features. Since both Va and Saboo disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Baheti teaches
selecting the entry in the predefined first sub-range having a shortest range to the FMCW radar sensor as an entry representing the person nearest to the FMCW radar sensor (0138 “During step 1832, the object or objects (e.g., fingers) are detected by one or more of the millimeter-wave radars. In some embodiments, the object closest to the millimeter-wave radar is associated with the detection (detections of objects farther than the nearest detection are ignored).”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Baheti with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar tracking while keeping a small footprint (Baheti 0055). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Baheti merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features. Since both the cited prior art and Baheti disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 1,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Baheti teaches
wherein a size of the gesture detection zone is predefined and independent from the determined range of the person (0062 “In some embodiments, millimeter-wave radar 102 detects the presence or absence of objects in field of view 114 irrespective of the object's distance to the millimeter-wave radar 102. In other embodiments, millimeter-wave radar 102 detects the presence or absence of objects in a predetermined range (height),”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Baheti with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar tracking while keeping a small footprint (Baheti 0055). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Baheti merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features. Since both the cited prior art and Baheti disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saboo et al. (US 20160252607 hereinafter Saboo) in view of Va et al. (US 20210011147 hereinafter Va) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holz (US 20140340524).
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 8,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Holz teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to dynamically update at least one of a range or a size of the gesture detection zone based on the continuously determined range of the person nearest to the FMCW radar sensor (0007 “The size and location of the detection zone may be adjusted based on the distance and direction between the user and the motion-capture system”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Holz with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce and simplify the detection process (Holz 0007). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Holz merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features for gestures. Since both cited prior art and Holz disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saboo et al. (US 20160252607 hereinafter Saboo) in view of Va et al. (US 20210011147 hereinafter Va) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Singh et al. (US 20200065663 hereinafter Singh).
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the gesture of the person using a trained machine-learning model (Saboo 0077 “One of ordinary skill in the art will understand embodiments in which the classification may be performed using machine learning techniques”),
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Singh teaches the trained machine-learning model being configured to receive the time-series of the one or more features of the hand movement as input and to output the gesture of the person based on the received time-series of the one or more features of the hand movement (Abstract “The present invention extends to methods, systems, and computer program products for classifying time series image data . . . Neural networks can be trained to detect and classify actions in videos from eccentricity maps. Eccentricity maps can be provided to a neural network as input. Output from the neural network can indicate if detected motion in a video is or is not classified as an action, such as, for example, a hand gesture.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Singh with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve radar detection speed and operation (Singh 0003). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Singh merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular radar features. Since both cited prior art and Singh disclose similar radars, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Li et al. (US 20190094872) discloses “One aspect of the disclosure provides a method of maneuvering a vehicle in reverse for attachment to a trailer. The method includes: determining, at a computing device in communication with the neural network, a selected trailer in proximity to the vehicle; detecting at least one user input gesture performed by a user and captured in at least one image from at least one camera on the vehicle; selected a maneuver command for the vehicle based on the detected gesture; and executing the maneuver to move the vehicle from the initial position toward a final position adjacent the trailer. (See abstract)”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/
Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights