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 06/26/2025, 12/08/2023, 03/06/2026 are 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.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more (see MPEP 2106).
Applying Step 1 of the MPEP § 2106, the instant application includes the following independent claims:
Claim 1 is directed towards “A processor-implemented method, the method comprising: identifying, from received Radio Frequency (RF) signals, a signal feature map, the signal feature map containing information calculated to detect a presence of a person "
Claim 4 is directed towards “An electronic apparatus, the apparatus comprising: one or more processors configured to execute instructions; and a memory storing the instructions, wherein execution of the instructions configures the one or more processors to: identify a signal feature map on a basis of received RF signals”
As such, claims 1 and 4 are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claim 4 is evaluated under the same basis as claim 1 because claim 4 has the same defects as those noted in claim 1 below:
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the MPEP § 2106: claim 1 presents the following steps which
under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, constitute an abstract idea and recite a mathematical process:
1. A processor-implemented method, the method comprising: identifying, from received Radio Frequency (RF) signals, a signal feature map, the signal feature map containing information calculated to detect a presence of a person; identifying, from the received RF signals, visual clues according to association information between first information based on a result of image-based Multi-Person Pose Estimation (MPPE) learning and second information based on a result of RF signal-based Multi-Person Pose Estimation (MPPE) learning; detecting one or more persons by utilizing the signal feature map and the visual clues; and detecting one or more poses of the one more persons based on the signal feature map and the visual clues .
Each of these steps can reasonably be performed by a general-purpose computer as indicated in Applicant’s specification (see para. 0075) and thus are reasonably mathematical concepts.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the MPEP § 2106: Claims 1 and 4 do not integrate the claimed abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 and 4 similarly recite “detecting one or more poses of the one more persons based on the signal feature map and the visual clues”
These limitations add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding Step 2B of the MPEP § 2106: Claims 1 and 4 do not recite additional elements, taken individually and in combination, that result in the claim as a whole, amounting to an inventive concept. The claim consists entirely of computing and outputting data in the form of an aggregating solution; thus, the claim generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular mathematical calculation; and thus, fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than steps that would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. Claims 1 and 4 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, merely requires an expression of a mathematical concept and performing mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). As such claims 1 and 4 do not integrate the abstract idea into an inventive concept.
Claims 2-3 and 5-6, when taken both individually and in combination, are directed to the judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more. Each of the additional cited claims add limitations can be performed by a general-purpose computer using math. As such, claims 2-3 and 5-6 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, merely requires an expression of a mathematical concept and performing mathematical calculations, with or without a simple calculator (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Finally, claims 2-3 and 5-6 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding rejection under 35 USC § 101, Applicant alleges on p. 6:
Lastly, the latest office action rejected the claims based upon 35 U.S.C. §101. In response, it is respectfully asserted that inclusion of the specific annotation data structure having the particular elements recited, renders the claims as being drawn to statutory subject matter. In response, the Examiner is directed to the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Enfish, LLC V. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). There, the court deemed certain data structures relating to the storage and access of information in a database, to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101: the claims are not simply directed to any form of storing tabular data, but instead are specifically directed" to a particular type of table. Id. at 14 (emphasis in original). Thus, the claims were not (1) "simply adding conventional computer components to well-known business practices"; (2) mathematical formulas performed on any general purpose computer; or (3) "generalized steps performed on a computer using conventional computer activity." In the present application, the claims are not simply directed to any form of generalized image processing, but rather specifically to image-based MPPE learning and RF signal-based MPPE learning, each involving 5 specific annotation data types . . . Given this specificity of the elements now recited by the pending claims, it is respectfully asserted that an annotation data structure exhibiting at least one of the separate and distinct: bounding box, point, keypoint, polyline, and polygon elements, represent patent eligible subject matter under the Enfish decision.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are use an annotation data structure that is normal to a person having ordinary skill in the art and further describes an image and is not directed towards improve computer architecture. As such, the claims are directed to the judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more. Each of the additional cited claims add limitations can be performed by a general-purpose computer using math merely requiring an expression of a mathematical concept and performing mathematical calculations, with or without a simple calculator (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US PAT 12154011 hereinafter Zhang) in view of Lee et al. (“HuPR: A Benchmark for Human Pose Estimation Using Millimeter Wave Radar” [NPL] hereinafter Lee) and further in view of Chandler et al (US 20220277515 hereinafter Chandler).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches A processor-implemented method, the method comprising: identifying, from received Radio Frequency (RF) signals (Abstract “A method for pose recognition includes storing parameters for configuration of an automated pose recognition system for detection of a pose of a subject represented in a radio frequency input signal.”),
a signal feature map (0077 “The feature network 522 is an intermediate layer of the single-person posed estimation network 520 of FIG. 6 and is configured to process the 4-D RF tensor data 512 to generate feature maps.”),
the signal feature map containing information calculated to detect a presence of a person (0023 “FIG. 7 is a multi-person 3-D pose estimation network.”);
identifying, from the received RF signals, visual clues according to association information between first information (0041 “the keypoint estimation module 102 uses a cross-modal student-teacher training methodology (where the keypoint estimation module 102 is the ‘student’ network) that transfers visual knowledge of a subject's pose using synchronized images of the subject (collected from a camera) and RF heatmaps of the same subject as a bridge.”);
detecting one or more persons by utilizing the signal feature map and the visual clues (0041 “transfers visual knowledge of a subject's pose using synchronized images of the subject (collected from a camera) and RF heatmaps of the same subject as a bridge.”); and
detecting one or more poses of the one or more persons based on the signal feature map and the visual clues (0047 “as the number of frames in the input (i.e., while the network looks at a clip of multiple RF frames at a time, it still outputs a pose estimate for every frame in the input).”),
Zhang does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Lee teaches identifying, from the received RF signals, visual clues according to association information between first information based on a result of image-based Multi-Person Pose Estimation (MPPE) learning and second information based on a result of RF signal-based Multi-Person Pose Estimation (MPPE) learning (fig 1 [radar and rgb camera is used for pose estimation]; Abstract “The framework consists of a new radar pre-processing method that better extracts the velocity information from radar data, Cross- and Self-Attention Module (CSAM), to fuse multi-scale radar features, and Pose Refinement Graph Convolutional Networks (PRGCN), to refine the predicted keypoint confidence heatmaps”).
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 Lee with the teachings of Zhang. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve pose estimation (Lee p.2). 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, Lee merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular pose estimation techniques. Since both Zhang and Lee disclose similar pose estimation systems, 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, Chandler teaches wherein the image-based MPPE learning provides annotation data, including one or more of a bounding box, a point, a keypoint, a polyline, and a polygon, and the RF signal- based MPPE learning is trained to predict the annotation data based on the received RF signals (0016 “In an annotation application, the method may be applied in an iterative manner, to build up an increasingly high-quality 3D model as frames are annotated, whilst at the same time generating useful annotation data for the frames. For example, an annotator may initially create the 3D model by positioning a 3D bounding box in a single initial reference frame, or the 3D bounding box may be placed automatically (see below).”; 0015 “Such depth maps could also come from LiDAR, RADAR etc, or be derived by merging multiple sensor modalities”).
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 Chandler with the teachings of the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve pose estimation (Chandler 0402). 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, Chandler merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular pose estimation techniques. Since both Chandler and the cited prior art disclose similar pose estimation systems, 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 2, the cited prior art teaches The method according to claim 1, further comprising learning the visual clues in a supervised manner to mimic an image feature map extracted on a basis of images generated (Zhang 0055 “In the teacher-student training paradigm, the teacher network 102 provides cross-modal supervision and the keypoint estimation module 104 performs RF-based pose estimation.”) at a same time as a reception of the RF signals (Zhang 0007 “For example, during training the system uses synchronized wireless and visual inputs, extracts pose information from the visual stream, and uses it to guide the training process. Once trained, the network uses only the wireless signal for pose estimation.”).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teaches The method according to claim 1, wherein the detecting of the one or more persons comprises: identifying an integrated feature map of the signal feature map; and identifying a feature map of the visual clues (Zhang fig 9).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 3. Therefore, claim 6 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure:
Wallin et al. (US 20200167954) discloses “An apparatus and method for estimating the pose of one or more persons is described. An example technique may include receiving a point cloud from a LiDAR sensor, the point cloud including a plurality of points representing positions of objects relative to the LiDAR sensor, processing the point cloud to produce a voxelized frame including a plurality of voxels, processing the voxelized frame using a deep neural network to determine one or more persons relative to the LiDAR sensor and a pose for each of the one or more persons, and outputting a location of the determined one or more persons and the pose for each of the determined one or more persons. (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