DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicants' arguments filed 01/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the Rejection under 35 U.S.C 101 the applicant argues that the claimed subject matter is not characterized as a mental process, the claim integrates any potential abstract idea into a practical application, and the claims as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the 101 rejection.
The Applicant argues that the claimed limitation “determining a two-dimensional (2D) location of human movement based on the UWB radar measurements” is not reasonably performed in the human mind and the limitation is not abstractly claimed. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)((III)(a) states “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” specifically citing that the steps of “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” are examples of a claim that recite a mental process. The above limitation specifically recites evaluating data collected from a UWB radar in order to make a determination regarding the location of human movement. Further, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)((III)(b) states “The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation.” With the use of a physical aid, one can practically determine a two dimensional location of movement based on radar measurement. The Examiner maintains that the above limitation recites a mental process.
The Applicant argues that the newly claimed limitation, “when the set of features for the respective centroid satisfies the human- movement condition, classifying the respective centroid as human movement” applies a specific mathematical processing to a technological purpose. The Applicant further suggests that this integrates the abstract idea into the practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As cited above, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)((III)(a) states “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.” The step of classifying a set of features as human movement recites a judgment that can be performed in the human mind. Although the limitation recites a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong 1 and is not further considered as an additional element under step 2A, the Examiner notes that merely applying the mathematical process to the unclaimed technological purpose of “robust human-presence detection and 2D localization within defined 3D boundaries” does not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.05(h) states that a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible “simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.”
The Applicant argues that the claimed limitation “obtaining a set of centroids based on ultra-wide band (UWB) radar measurements” is not mere data gathering but “a limitation that ties the claimed processing to a particular machine and constrains how the downstream steps operate.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ultra-wide band (UWB) radar and claimed measurement of “UWB signals reflected off of a set of moving targets” do not amount to a particular machine as defined by MPEP2106.05(b). Ultra-wide band (UWB) is a common technology in the art and is claimed at a high level of generality. “Measuring signals reflected off of a set of moving targets” does not significantly limit the purported machine as this is also recited at a high level of generality. MPEP2106.05(b)(I) states that a machine or apparatus must be recited particularly in order to qualify as a particular machine, listing “details as to the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged” as an example of particularly. It is additionally noted that claim 1 does not recite use of ultra-wide band (UWB) radar, merely obtaining information from the radar.
With respect to the applicant’s argument that claimed limitation “obtaining a set of centroids based on ultra-wide band (UWB) radar measurements” is not mere data gathering, the Applicant states “The obtaining limitation filters radar returns to moving-target centroids and provides the very inputs used in the subsequent ‘classifying,’ ‘determining [a] 2D location,’ and ‘updating a current state value’ steps.” In response the Examiner respectfully reminds the Applicant that “filtering radar returns to moving-target centroids” and providing inputs to subsequent mental processes is not claimed. As claimed, the above limitation only recites obtaining centroids (centroids are data as described by paragraph [0096] of the specification). The Applicants specification states “the processor 240 obtains a set of centroids based on ultra-wide band (UWB) radar measurements. For example, the processor 240 uses the HMD 700 to generate the set of targets 718 based on the CIR windows 70” on paragraph [0156]. Interpreted in light of the specification, the above limitation recites obtaining a set of targets, which is mere data gathering and classified as Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. The Applicant further purports that the above limitation “improves that system's functionality by discriminating moving targets from stationary targets, and by both ignoring stationary targets and extracting centroids for moving targets.” MPEP 2106.05(a) states “the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” The examiner can find no suggestion in the specification that would lead one of ordinary sill in the art to determine that the step of “obtaining a set of centroids” provides the above improvement. The Examiner maintains that the above limitation is Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The Applicant states that independent claim 1 recites an “ordered pipeline” that “reflects a domain-tailored architecture aimed at robust human presence detection”, that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.05 does not recognize a domain-tailored “ordered pipeline” as a limitation that the courts have found to qualify as significantly more. Even if the “domain-tailored architecture” of the pipeline is interpreted to refer to a particular technological environment, each limitation in the “ordered pipeline” either recites a judicial exception or Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. Preforming a series of domain-tailored Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself
The Applicant argues that the claimed limitation “updating a current state value that indicates whether a human presence is detected inside boundaries of a 3D space, based at least in part on the classification of each of the respective centroids among the set of centroids” is not mere data manipulation citing that “A step of updating a current state value is the control decision the system is designed to make through an ordered combination recited in Claim 1” The Examiner disagrees. Paragraph [0164] of the Applicant’s specification states, “the processor 240 updates the current state value to one of: a first current state value that represents human presence is detected inside boundaries of a space such that the current state is not-EMPTY, or a second current state value that represents human presence is not detected inside boundaries of a space such that the current state is EMPTY.” The claimed “state value” is a binary variable representing the presence of a human. Updating a binary variable based on a condition recites mere data gathering in the form of merely manipulating the claimed “state value.” The Examiner maintains that the above limitation is Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The Applicant further argues that “whether a human presence is detected inside boundaries of a 3D space” is not mere data manipulation. The Examiner respectfully reminds the Applicant that the claimed limitation is “update a current state value that indicates whether a human presence is detected inside boundaries of a 3D space, based at least in part on the classification of each of the respective centroids among the set of centroids.” The phrase “whether a human presence is detected inside boundaries of a 3D space” is not itself a claimed limitation, but a phrase that describes the data that the claimed “state value” represents. An analysis of the phrase “whether a human presence is detected inside boundaries of a 3D space” separate from the claimed “state value” is improper. As described in greater detail above, regardless of what data the claimed “state value” represents, manipulating a “state value” is Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The Applicant finally argues that the claimed “whether a human presence is detected inside boundaries of a 3D space” improves accuracy of occupancy detection, citing paragraphs [0076] and [0082] of the Applicants specification. As stated above an analysis of the phrase “whether a human presence is detected inside boundaries of a 3D space” separate from the claimed “state value” is improper. Further, MPEP 2106.05(a) states “the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.” Paragraph [0076] is directed to the process of defining a physical space for a presence detection system, not the treatment of a state value or to the purported benefits of human presence detection. Paragraph [0082] is directed to a room boundary determination module that accepts user feedback, not the treatment of a state value or to the purported benefits of human presence detection. In addition to paragraphs [0076] and [0082] the Examiner can find no suggestion in the specification that would lead one of ordinary sill in the art to determine that the step of updating a “state value” or the generic step of human presence detection provides the above improvement. The Examiner maintains that the above limitation is Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
With respect to the Rejection under 35 U.S.C 102, the Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely solely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)).
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 1 (and its dependents) recites a method. The claim therefore recites a process
Claim 11 (and its dependents) recites a device. The claim therefore recites a product.
Step 2A, Prong One — Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 1 recites,
for each respective centroid among the set of centroids: classifying the respective centroid as one among human movement and non-human movement, based on whether a set of features for the respective centroid satisfies a human-movement condition
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of classifying data as human movement or non-human movement. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
when the set of features for the respective centroid fails to satisfy the human- movement condition, classifying the respective centroid as non-human movement;
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of classifying data as non-human movement. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
when the set of features for the respective centroid satisfies the human- movement condition, classifying the respective centroid as human movement
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of classifying data as human movement. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
determining a two-dimensional (2D) location of human movement based on the UWB radar measurements
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of making a determination on locating human movement. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Claim 2 recites,
Determining boundaries of a moving area that is a plane inside the boundaries of the space, wherein: the 2D location of the human movement is in the plane
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of determining a room boundary (see, Specifications [0080]). Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Claim 5 recites,
in response to a determination the 2D location of human movement is inside boundaries of a moving area inside the 3D space, mapping a latest channel impulse response (CIR) identifier (ID) to coordinates of the 2D location of human movement.
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of mapping a value to a coordinate. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Claim 6 recites,
performing a breath detection algorithm to determine whether a breath signal is detected within a proximity distance to a latest 2D location of human movement.
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of a breath detection (see, 0147). Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 7 recites,
performing the breath detection algorithm comprises: detecting peaks of average energy based on historical UWB radar measurements corresponding to the CIR window
This limitation describes a mathematical process in the form of signal peak detection. Therefore, this limitation describes a mathematical calculation, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
determining whether the breath signal is detected based on whether a prominence of each of the peaks satisfies a threshold prominence condition
The claim recites the step of comparing collected information to a predefined threshold, which is an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
calculating a 2D location of breathing corresponding to each peak that satisfied the threshold prominence condition
This limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C).
determining that the breathing signal is detected based on a determination that the 2D location of breathing is within a proximity distance to the latest 2D location of the human movement
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of determining a breathing signal detection based on a consideration of location. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Claim 8 recites,
determining whether the human presence is detected inside the boundaries of the 3D space based on a count of the affirmative indicators in the historical register of breath detection results
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of determining human presence based on a count. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Claim 9 recites,
determining that the human presence is detected inside the boundaries of the 3D space based on the count of the affirmative indicators in the historical register of breath detection results exceeding a threshold.
This limitation is a process that covers performance of this limitation in the mind of determining human presence based on a count. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A-D).
Claim 10 recites,
calculating a range doppler map (RDM) based on the UWB radar measurements
limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation. Therefore, the claim recites a
mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C).
for each cell under test (CUT) in the RDM: calculating an adaptive threshold power level for the CUT based on an energy level of neighboring cells of the CUT
limitation is a process that recites a mathematical calculation. Therefore, the claim recites a
mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(1)(C).
and determining that the CUT corresponds to a potential target based on a power level for the CUT that exceeds the adaptive threshold power level
This limitation is also a process that recites a mathematical calculation by determining that the CUT corresponds to a potential target based on a threshold. Thus, this limitation also recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
generating a cell averaging constant false alarm rate (CA-CFAR) hit map that includes a hit cell mapped to each CUT in the RDM that corresponds to the potential target
This limitation is also a process that recites a mathematical calculation by generating a hit map. Thus, this limitation also recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
filtering the CA-CFAR hit map applying an erosion and a dilation of morphological processing
This limitation is also a process that recites a mathematical calculation by applying erosion and dilation filtering. Thus, this limitation also recites a mathematical concept, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C).
Step 2A, Prong Two — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 also recites,
obtaining a set of centroids based on ultra-wide band (UWB) radar measurements of UWB signals reflected off of a set of moving targets respectively corresponding to the set of centroids
Obtaining a set of centroids is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim
updating a current state value that indicates whether a human presence is detected inside boundaries of a 3D space, based at least in part on the classification of each of the respective centroids among the set of centroids
This limitation merely describes manipulating data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 2 also recites,
the UWB radar measurements are generated by at least two antennas that are next to each other and at least one of parallel to or coplanar with the plane.
This limitation merely describes data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 3 also recites,
the current state value represents a current state of human presence inside the boundaries of the 3D space;
This limitation merely describes data, and is therefore mere data gathering. This claim is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
and updating the current state value further comprises updating, based on whether the 2D location is inside the boundaries of the 3D space,
This limitation merely describes manipulating data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
the current state value to one of: a first current state value that represents human presence is detected inside boundaries of a space such that the current state is not-EMPTY, or a second current state value that represents human presence is not detected inside boundaries of a space such that the current state is EMPTY.
This limitation merely describes data, and is therefore mere data gathering. This claim is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 5 also recites,
when a new 2D location of human movement is determined, updating the CIR window of time by recording a new CIR ID mapped to coordinates of the new 2D location of human movement, wherein the CIR window includes a series of CIR IDs.
Recording a new CIR ID mapped to coordinates is mere data gathering. This claim is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 6 also recites,
in response to a determination that none of the respective centroids among the set of centroids is classified as human movement: for each new CIR prior to expiry of a timeout period: updating a channel impulse response (CIR) window of time by adding the new CIR, and not changing the current state;
Recording a new CIR ID mapped to coordinates is mere data gathering. This claim is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 8 also recites,
in response to a determination that the breathing signal is detected, adding an affirmative indicator into a historical register of breath detection results;
This limitation merely describes manipulating data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
in response to a determination that the breathing signal is not detected, adding a negative indicator into the historical register of breath detection results;
This limitation merely describes manipulating data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. See Memorandum.
Claim 1 also recites,
obtaining a set of centroids based on ultra-wide band (UWB) radar measurements of UWB signals reflected off of a set of moving targets respectively corresponding to the set of centroids
Obtaining a set of centroids is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim
updating a current state value that indicates whether a human presence is detected inside boundaries of a 3D space, based at least in part on the classification of each of the respective centroids among the set of centroids
This limitation merely describes manipulating data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 2 also recites,
the UWB radar measurements are generated by at least two antennas that are next to each other and at least one of parallel to or coplanar with the plane.
This limitation merely describes data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 3 also recites,
the current state value represents a current state of human presence inside the boundaries of the 3D space;
This limitation merely describes data, and is therefore mere data gathering. This claim is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
and updating the current state value further comprises updating, based on whether the 2D location is inside the boundaries of the 3D space,
This limitation merely describes manipulating data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
the current state value to one of: a first current state value that represents human presence is detected inside boundaries of a space such that the current state is not-EMPTY, or a second current state value that represents human presence is not detected inside boundaries of a space such that the current state is EMPTY.
This limitation merely describes data, and is therefore mere data gathering. This claim is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 4 further recites,
in response to a determination that a respective centroid among the set of centroids is classified as human movement and that the current state is not-EMPTY: resetting a no-movement time count, and resetting a channel impulse response (CIR) window of time that is defined by a sliding window of a series of CIR inputs.
This limitation describes mere instructions to apply an exception in the form of applying a common place algorithm, an algorithm for controlling a timer and channel impulse response (CIR) window, being applied on a general purpose computer.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(f)(2). The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 5 also recites,
when a new 2D location of human movement is determined, updating the CIR window of time by recording a new CIR ID mapped to coordinates of the new 2D location of human movement, wherein the CIR window includes a series of CIR IDs.
Recording a new CIR ID mapped to coordinates is mere data gathering. This claim is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 6 also recites,
in response to a determination that none of the respective centroids among the set of centroids is classified as human movement: for each new CIR prior to expiry of a timeout period: updating a channel impulse response (CIR) window of time by adding the new CIR, and not changing the current state;
Recording a new CIR ID mapped to coordinates is mere data gathering. This claim is a mere data gathering, extra solution activity that is understood as merely nominal. See MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 8 also recites,
in response to a determination that the breathing signal is detected, adding an affirmative indicator into a historical register of breath detection results;
This limitation merely describes manipulating data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
in response to a determination that the breathing signal is not detected, adding a negative indicator into the historical register of breath detection results;
This limitation merely describes manipulating data, therefore this limitation is a mere data gathering, extra-solution activity that is understood as merely nominal to the claim.
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Claim 10 also recites,
applying a clustering algorithm to the filtered CA-CFAR hit map, wherein a centroid of each respective cluster of adjacent cells represents the cluster, and wherein each respective cluster represents a respective target
This limitation describes mere instructions to apply an exception in the form of applying a commonplace mathematical algorithm, a clustering algorithm, being applied on a general purpose computer. See 2106.05(f)(2).
The combination of these additional elements are no more than mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea in order to provide data for the mental process to be applied to. Therefore, this does not meaningfully limit the claim, see MPEP 2106.05(g)(3).
Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim requires no more than data gathering steps that collect necessary data for estimating, analyzing, and evaluating and requires no more than a generic computer to perform operations and generic computer functions that are well- understood, routine, and conventional activities.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZACK(US20160379462A1) in view of Benitez(US20130041856A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zack discloses
A method comprising: obtaining a set of centroids (“re-trained home position matrices (centroids) codebook” [0109]) based on ultra-wide band (UWB) radar measurements (“WB-RF (ultra-wide band radio frequency)” [0076]) of UWB signals reflected off of a set of moving targets respectively corresponding to the set of centroids (Fig.1B, Part.91); for each respective centroid among the set of centroids: classifying the respective centroid as one among human movement […] (“finding the set of code-vectors (centroids) that sufficiently representing the instantaneous human states” [0188]), based on whether a set of features for the respective centroid satisfies a human-movement condition including (“The classifying phase is executed during the online operation while an unknown features vector is entered into the classifier and the classifier determines what the most probable state that it represents” [0188]);[…] b) when the set of features for the respective centroid satisfies the human- movement condition, classifying the respective centroid as human movement (“System 100 may further comprise human state classifier 250 configured to classify the motion and movement characteristics of the at least one human to indicate a state of the at least one human” [0134]) and determining a two-dimensional (2D) location of human movement based on the UWB radar measurements (“ The VQ states are defined as the set of instantaneous states at various locations at the monitored home environment” [0188]); and updating a current state value that indicates whether a human presence is detected inside boundaries of a 3D space, based at least in part on the classification of each of the respective centroids among the set of centroids (“The VQ based human state classifier (described above) is trained to know the various primary places at the home” [0080] & “the position is extracted as the position (in case of 2D—angle/range, in case of 3D—x, y, z coordinates)” [0109]).
While Zack discloses classifying human movement Zack does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein classifying non-human movement when features for a centroid fails to satisfy the human movement condition. Benitez discloses, a) when the set of features for the respective centroid fails to satisfy the human- movement condition, classifying the respective centroid as non-human movement (“a set of twenty-five dimensional features are extracted within each time frame, and differences between human and nonhuman activities are identified in this feature space” [0012] & “A decision making stage 222 includes a block 224 that decides whether the movement is that of a predetermined type of object or non-human animal” [0043]).
Benitez teaches in the same field of endeavor of human and nonhuman movement classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zack with the teachings of Benitez to incorporate the features of classifying non-human movement when features for a centroid fails to satisfy the human movement condition so as to gain the advantage of improving detection capabilities [0008, Benitez]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, Zack as modified by Benitez further comprises: determining boundaries of a moving area that is a 3D plane inside the boundaries of the space, wherein (“The home environment is mapped into the primary zones (the major home places that the monitored person attends most of the time as bedroom 810, restroom 820, living room 830 and the like) and secondary zone” [0195]): the 2D location of the human movement is in the plane (“FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating a floor plan 800 of an exemplary residential environment (e.g., an apartment) on which the process for the initial training is described herein” [0195]); and the UWB radar measurements are generated by at least two antennas that are next to each other and at least one of parallel to or coplanar with the plane (FIG.2N, Parts.101A-101D).
Regarding claim 3, Zack as modified by Benitez discloses wherein, the current state value represents a current state of human presence inside the boundaries of the 3D space(“ The VQ states are defined as the set of instantaneous states at various locations at the monitored home environment” [0188]); and updating the current state value further comprises updating, based on whether the 2D location is inside the boundaries of the 3D space, the current state value to one of: a first current state value that represents human presence is detected inside boundaries of a space such that the current state is not-EMPTY (“identifying a most probable fit of human current state that represents an actual human instantaneous status” [0200]), or a second current state value that represents human presence is not detected inside boundaries of a space such that the current state is EMPTY (“According to some embodiments of the present invention, the clutter cancellation also includes stationary environment detection to detect if no person is at the environment” [0084]).
Regarding claim 11, Zack discloses
An electronic device comprising: a transceiver configured to transmit and receive radar signals (“The terms “transmitting antenna” and “receiving antenna” as used in this application refer are non-limiting in the sense that the system may be configured to transmit signals via antennas denoted below as receiving antennas and receive echo signals via antennas denoted below as transmitting antennas.” [0072]); and a processor operably connected to the transceiver (“Any of the disclosed modules or units may be at least partially implemented by a computer processor.” [0075]) and configured to: obtain a set of centroids based on ultra-wide band (UWB) radar measurements (“re-trained home position matrices (centroids) codebook” [0109]) of UWB signals reflected off of a set of moving targets respectively corresponding to the set of centroids (Fig.1B, Part.91); for each respective centroid among the set of centroids: classify the respective centroid as one among human movement […] (“finding the set of code-vectors (centroids) that sufficiently representing the instantaneous human states” [0188]), based on a set of features for the respective centroid satisfying a human- movement condition including (“The classifying phase is executed during the online operation while an unknown features vector is entered into the classifier and the classifier determines what the most probable state that it represents” [0188]); b) when the set of features for the respective centroid satisfies the human- movement condition, classifying the respective centroid as human movement (“System 100 may further comprise human state classifier 250 configured to classify the motion and movement characteristics of the at least one human to indicate a state of the at least one human” [0134]) determine a two-dimensional (2D) location of human movement based on the UWB radar measurements (“ The VQ states are defined as the set of instantaneous states at various locations at the monitored home environment” [0188]); and update a current state value that indicates whether a human presence is detected inside boundaries of a 3D space, based at least in part on the classification of each of the respective centroids among the set of centroids (“The VQ based human state classifier (described above) is trained to know the various primary places at the home” [0080] & “the position is extracted as the position (in case of 2D—angle/range, in case of 3D—x, y, z coordinates)” [0109]).
While Zack discloses classifying human movement Zack does not explicitly disclose nor limit wherein classifying non-human movement when features for a centroid fails to satisfy the human movement condition. Benitez discloses, a) when the set of features for the respective centroid fails to satisfy the human- movement condition, classifying the respective centroid as non-human movement (“a set of twenty-five dimensional features are extracted within each time frame, and differences between human and nonhuman activities are identified in this feature space” [0012] & “A decision making stage 222 includes a block 224 that decides whether the movement is that of a predetermined type of object or non-human animal” [0043]).
Benitez teaches in the same field of endeavor of human and nonhuman movement classification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zack with the teachings of Benitez to incorporate the features of classifying non-human movement when features for a centroid fails to satisfy the human movement condition so as to gain the advantage of improving detection capabilities [0008, Benitez]. Also, since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 12, Zack as modified by Benitez discloses wherein, the processor is further configured to: determine boundaries of a moving area that is a plane inside the boundaries of the 3D space, wherein (“The home environment is mapped into the primary zones (the major home places that the monitored person attends most of the time as bedroom 810, restroom 820, living room 830 and the like) and secondary zone” [0195]):the 2D location of the human movement is in the plane (“FIG. 8 is a diagram illustrating a floor plan 800 of an exemplary residential environment (e.g., an apartment) on which the process for the initial training is described herein” [0195]); and the UWB radar measurements are generated by at least two antennas that are next to each other and at least one of parallel to or coplanar with the plane (FIG.2N, Parts.101A-101D).
Regarding claim 13, Zack as modified by Benitez discloses wherein, the current state value represents a current state of human presence inside the boundaries of the 3D space (“The VQ states are defined as the set of instantaneous states at various locations at the monitored home environment” [0188]); and to update the current state value, the processor is further configured to update, based on whether the 2D location is inside the boundaries of the 3D space, the current state value to one of: a first current state value that represents human presence is detected inside boundaries of a space such that the current state is not-EMPTY (“identifying a most probable fit of human current state that represents an actual human instantaneous status” [0200]), or a second current state value that represents human presence is not detected inside boundaries of a space such that the current state is EMPTY (“According to some embodiments of the present invention, the clutter cancellation also includes stationary environment detection to detect if no person is at the environment” [0084]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10 and 14-20 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, any intervening claims, and overcoming any 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection and 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
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
Prosecution Insights