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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1-22-2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1-8-2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to applicant’s argument that Chen is fundamentally different because a detection can be triggered by a single signal deviation, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Chen discloses grouping transmitters together and in paragraph 42 describes the scenario where three different transmitters in a group provide a lower RSSI than expected and an abnormality is detected.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0297167, published September 23, 2021 in view of Dupray, et. al., U.S. Patent Number 10,684,350, published June 16, 2020.
As per claims 1 and 7, Chen discloses a person detection system comprising:
an obtainer that obtains a signal strength of a radio wave transmitted by each of a plurality of transmitters and received by an antenna; and a processing unit that performs a detection process of detecting whether a person is present in a vicinity of the antenna, based on the signal strengths obtained by the obtainer (Chen, ¶26),
wherein each of the plurality of transmitters is classified into any one of a plurality of groups according to a position of the transmitter with respect to the antenna (Chen, ¶27 and Fig. 3),
and in the detection process, determine whether each of the signal strengths regarding the two or more transmitters classified into the same group deviates from a normal range (Chen, ¶42 using three transmitters) and the processing unit detects that the person is present in the vicinity of the antenna when each of the signal strengths obtained by the obtainer regarding, among the plurality of transmitters, two or more transmitters classified into a same group among the plurality of groups deviates from a normal range (Chen, ¶34).
Chen fails to explicitly disclose grouping transmitters located within a predetermined range from the antenna.
Dupray teaches grouping based on location and distance (Col. 45, lines 19-43).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the grouping limitation and abnormality readings disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As per claim 2, Chen as modified by Dupray discloses the person detection system according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit has a function of performing a classification process of classifying each of the plurality of transmitters into any one of the plurality of groups according to the position of the transmitter with respect to the antenna (Chen, ¶41).
As per claim 3, Chen as modified by Dupray further discloses the person detection system according to claim 1 [[or 2]], wherein the processing unit has a function of performing a determination process of determining, for each of the plurality of transmitters, the normal range based on the signal strength obtained by the obtainer regarding the transmitter (Chen, ¶51).
As per claim 4, Chen as modified by Dupray further discloses the person detection system according to claim 1 [[or 2]], wherein the processing unit performs the detection process when an instantaneous value of the signal strength obtained by the obtainer regarding any one of the plurality of transmitters is attenuated by a predetermined value or more (Chen, ¶53 using a threshold).
As per claim 6, Chen as modified by Dupray discloses the system of claim 1 including an antenna and controller for alert detection (Fig. 1 and ¶23) but fails to explicitly disclose a voice output.
As Chen teaches an alert, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a voice, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Chen in alerting the appropriate party to a detection.
As per claim 8, Chen as modified by Dupray further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program for causing one or more processors to execute the person detection method according to claim 7 (Chen, ¶84).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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 at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646