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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/13/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/26/2023, 01/03/2024 and 01/13/2026 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/13/2026 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.
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, 5-13, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (RFID Based Non-Contact Human Activity Detection Exploiting Cross Polarization [NPL, 2020]) in view of Saidj (US 20130162406).
Regarding claim 1, He teaches A method performed by a reader, the method comprising (Abstract “a cross circular polarization configuration between reader antenna and tag antenna is proposed to increase the sensing range and spatial sensitivity”):
transmitting a radio-frequency signal using an antenna of the reader (p.46585 “RFID systems utilizes backscattering, to communicate between a reader and multiple tags.”),
the radio-frequency signal interacting with two backscatter tags located off-person to form two backscatter signals (p.46585 “RFID systems utilizes backscattering, to communicate between a reader and multiple tags.”; fig 2b [while 1 tag is illustrated, it is expressed as ‘tags’ and the description makes it clear multiple tags are using corresponding to ‘two backscatter tags’]),
the two backscatter signals propagating from the two backscatter tags to a person and reflecting off of the person (fig 2b);
receiving the two backscatter signals reflected off of the person using the antenna (fig 2b); and
determining, by processing the two backscatter signals, (Abstract “the proposed approach can detect subtle and small body movements at almost 4.5m from the reader, such as head movements or even respiration”).
He does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Saidj teaches finding the location of an object using RFID tags that are not on the object (0011 “the presence of the object in a determined detection area results from the reception by the RFID interrogator after being reflected by the object of the identification signal emitted by the corresponding RFID tag”; fig 1 [the tag is off-person]).
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 Saidj with He. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve identification of RF tags (Saidj 0025). 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, Saidj merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular RF tag system. Since both He and Saidj disclose similar systems RF tag 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 of claim 1, wherein: the two backscatter signals propagate from the two backscatter tags to another person and reflect off of the other person; and the determining comprises determining, by processing the two backscatter signals (p.46585 “RFID systems utilizes backscattering, to communicate between a reader and multiple tags.”; fig 2b [while 1 tag is illustrated, it is expressed as ‘tags’ and the description makes it clear multiple tags are using corresponding to ‘two backscatter tags’]), (Abstract “the proposed approach can detect subtle and small body movements at almost 4.5m from the reader, such as head movements or even respiration”).
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 Saidj with He. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve identification of RF tags (Saidj 0025). 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, Saidj merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular RF tag system. Since both He and Saidj disclose similar systems RF tag 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.
Furthermore, He in view of Saidj teach determining a vital sign and location of a person. Detecting the vital sign and location of a second person as recited in claim 2 is a mere duplication of parts and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 B).
Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 2, wherein, the transmitting of the radio-frequency signal comprises transmitting the radio- frequency signal in a direction towards the two backscatter tags (He fig 2b); and the receiving of the two backscatter signals comprises receiving the two backscatter signals from a direction associated with an area of interest (He fig 2b), the area of interest including a region in which one or more people, including the person and the other person, are likely to be located (He fig2b) .
Regarding claim 5, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein: the transmitting of the radio-frequency signal comprises transmitting the radio-frequency signal with a first polarization that is co-polarized with antennas of the backscatter tags (He p.46587 “In the case of co-polarized CP reader and tag combination”); and the receiving of the two backscatter signals comprises receiving the two backscatter signals with a second polarization that is cross-polarized with the antennas of the backscatter tags (He p.46586 “RF energy is reflected and this reflected signal is flipped to the cross polarized handedness to that
of the incident wave. This phenomenon has been used in the miniaturization of Doppler radar for monitoring human vital signs, i.e., respiration and heartbeat”).
Regarding claim 6, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 5, wherein: the first polarization comprises a first circular polarization; and the second polarization comprises a second circular polarization that is orthogonal to the first circular polarization (He p.46593 “use cross circular polarization configuration to improve the signal-to-noise ratio which leads to a larger sensing range and a higher spatial sensitivity over the conventional circular reader and linear tag combination. We fabricated spiral circular polarized RFID tags”).
Regarding claim 7, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 5, wherein the transmitting of the radio-frequency signal with the first polarization and the receiving of the two backscatter signals with the second polarization enables received signal strengths of the two backscatter signals that are reflected off of the person to be higher in comparison to one or more of the following:
a received signal strength of the transmitted radio-frequency signal (He p.46586 “tags are mounted on the wall, and thus the change in RSSI and phase of back scattered wave is due to the dynamic body movements in a static environment.”); and received signal strengths of non-reflected versions of the two backscatter signals ([Examiner notes only 1 of the items in this list are required to be taught]).
Regarding claim 8, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the vital sign comprises at least one of a breathing rate or a heart rate (He p.46586 “RF energy is reflected and this reflected signal is flipped to the cross polarized handedness to that
of the incident wave. This phenomenon has been used in the miniaturization of Doppler radar for monitoring human vital signs, i.e., respiration and heartbeat”).
Regarding claim 9, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, wherein: the transmitting of the radio-frequency signal comprises transmitting the radio- frequency signal using a frequency-hopping spread-spectrum technique; and the determining comprises calibrating input responses associated with the two backscatter signals to reduce variations caused by the frequency-hopping spread- spectrum technique (He p.46589 “Demonstration of the frequency hopping calibration of the RFID reader. (a) Pre-calibration, showing the individual hops that the RFID reader goes through. It is noted that the RSSI only changes when the reader hops frequency. The phase (not shown) also demonstrates similar behavior. (b) Post-calibration. If there is no movement, when referenced to the calibration data, the variation is 0.”).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, the cited prior art teaches The reader of claim 10, wherein the at least one antenna is configured to transmit and receive radio-frequency signals with orthogonal circular polarizations (He p.46586 “To increase the spatial sensitivity, and to decrease the amount of tags required, in sensing human activity, a new approach was developed by exploiting the circularly cross polarization of the reader and tag”).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially the same limitations as claim 2. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Regarding claim 19, the cited prior art teaches The system of claim 13, wherein: the reader comprises a radio-frequency identification reader (He title “RFID Based Non-Contact Human Activity Detection Exploiting Cross Polarization”); and the at least two backscatter tags comprise at least two radio-frequency identification tags (He p.46586 “tags are mounted on the wall, and thus the change in RSSI and phase of back scattered wave is due to the dynamic body movements”).
Regarding claim 20, the cited prior art teaches The system of claim 13, wherein: the reader is further configured to: transmit the radio-frequency signal in a direction towards the two backscatter tags (He fig 2b); and receive the at least two backscatter signals reflected off of the person from a direction associated with an area of interest (He fig 2b), the area of interest including a region in which one or more people, including the person, are likely to be located (He fig 2b); and the reader and the backscatter tags are positioned on adjacent sides of the area of interest (He fig 7a [reader antenna and RFID tag are on adjacent sides]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (RFID Based Non-Contact Human Activity Detection Exploiting Cross Polarization [NPL, 2020]) in view of Saidj (US 20130162406) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Srivastava et al. (US 20160063182 hereinafter Srivastava).
Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising:
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Srivastava teaches alerting the person or another entity to an anomaly in the person's vital sign (0008 “FIG. 6 is a flow chart of an example process for monitoring and detecting anomalies in healthcare information”).
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 Srivastava with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously notify users of adverse events (Srivastava 0015). 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, Srivastava merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular notification features. Since both the cited prior art and Srivastava disclose similar systems monitoring vital signs, 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) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (RFID Based Non-Contact Human Activity Detection Exploiting Cross Polarization [NPL, 2020]) in view of Saidj (US 20130162406) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Gevargiz et al. (US PAT 7667652 hereinafter Gevargiz).
Regarding claim 14, the cited prior art teaches The system of claim 13,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Gevargiz teaches wherein the at least two backscatter tags comprise at least four backscatter tags (“For illustration simplicity, first assuming the received power per each element is the same, this is depicted as a 4-element linear array although it would be obvious to the practitioner of the field that it is equally applicable to arbitrary array configurations and unequal received power per element.”; fig 18).
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 Gevargiz with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reading tags in an RFID system (Gevargiz 2:40-45). 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, Gevargiz merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since both the cited prior art and Gevargiz disclose similar RFID antenna 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 15, the cited prior art teaches The system of claim 14,
He does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Gevargiz teaches wherein an arrangement of the at least four backscatter tags forms a linear array (“For illustration simplicity, first assuming the received power per each element is the same, this is depicted as a 4-element linear array although it would be obvious to the practitioner of the field that it is equally applicable to arbitrary array configurations and unequal received power per element.”; fig 18).
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 Gevargiz with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reading tags in an RFID system (Gevargiz 2:40-45). 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, Gevargiz merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since both the cited prior art and Gevargiz disclose similar RFID antenna 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 16, the cited prior art teaches The system of claim 14,
He does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Gevargiz teaches a first set of backscatter tags; and a second set of backscatter tags; an arrangement of the first set of backscatter tags forms a first linear array along a first axis; and an arrangement of the second set of backscatter tags forms a second linear array along a second axis that is approximately perpendicular to the first axis (fig 11).
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 Gevargiz with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve reading tags in an RFID system (Gevargiz 2:40-45). 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, Gevargiz merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since both the cited prior art and Gevargiz disclose similar RFID antenna 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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He et al. (RFID Based Non-Contact Human Activity Detection Exploiting Cross Polarization [NPL, 2020]) in view of Saidj (US 20130162406) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 20080018428 hereinafter Nakamura).
Regarding claim 17, the cited prior art teaches The system of claim 13,
The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Nakamura teaches The system of wherein a spacing between the at least two backscatter tags is greater than half a wavelength (0021 “FIG. 5 is a schematic diagram for explaining a relation between a thickness of a spacer and a maximum communication distance between an RFID tag and a reader/writer, according to the second embodiment”; Specifically, if the thickness of the spacer 33 is multiple of quarter wavelength or multiple of three-quarters wavelength of the radiowave, the maximum communication distance is approximately doubled or increased by 1.5 times compared to a case where the RFID tag 31 is singularly performs the communication, as shown in FIG. 5).
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 Nakamura with the cited prior art. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously optimize communication distance RFID system (Nakamura 0060). 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, Nakamura merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular antenna features. Since both the cited prior art and Nakamura disclose similar RFID antenna 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.
Conclusion
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:
Korn et al. (WO 2020038568) discloses “An embodiment provides an RFID reader which comprises a transmitter, a receiver and a processor. The transmitter is configured to provide a frequency signal for one or more RFID tags. (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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on (571) 270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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
/VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights