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 .
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed towards a program per se. The claim states ‘A computer program comprising instructions which, when the program is executed by a computer, cause the computer to…’. The claim is explicitly stated as being directed to a program; the computer is stated only in the context of potential execution of the program, not changing the claim from being explicitly claimed as a program. Therefore, the claim is rejected as a program per se.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a signal-emission control device for preventing illegitimate use of wireless radiofrequency” in claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 13
“an emission value ascertainment unit configured to ascertain variation-data indicative of an emission-value variation” in claim 1
“a transmitter control unit … configured to control operation of the at least one of the transmitter devices” in claim 1
“a receiver control unit … configured to control a provision, to at least one of the wireless receiver devices” in claim 1
“a context data ascertainment unit that is configured to ascertain network-context data pertaining to the devices” in claim 3
“a scheduling unit configured to ascertain operation-trigger data indicative of predetermined operation-conditions” in claim 6
“an encryption unit… configured to encrypt the control data” in claim 7
“a radiofrequency communication signal emission unit … configured to provide the wireless radiofrequency communication signals” in claim 8
“a radiofrequency communication signal receiving unit configured to receive wireless radiofrequency communication signals” in claim 10
“a control data input unit configured to receive…control data indicative of the signal parameter value” in claim 10
a subject activity determination unit … configured to determine a reception-signal value of the one or more of the signal parameters” in claim 10
“a decryption unit ... configured to decrypt encrypted control-data” in claim 11
“a subject-activity sensing arrangement configured to determine a subject activity of a subject” in claim 12
“a subject-activity sensing arrangement configured to determine a subject activity of a subject” in claim 14
Transmitter device and receiver device are interpreted as not invoking 112f interpretation because "transmitter" and "receiver" are structural modifiers to provide sufficient structure known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the path" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 establishes in line 2 “use of wireless radiofrequency, RF, communication signals”. Line 3 then states “wireless radiofrequency communication signals”. Line 9 then states “the RF communication signals”, while line 15 states “the wireless radiofrequency communication signals”. Finally, lines 20-21 state “the wireless radiofrequency communication signal”. These limitations have created antecedent confusion and created an issue of indefiniteness in the claim language as the scope of the claim is not clear. First, are the elements in line 1 and line 3 meant to be the same element or two different elements? This needs to be clearly established, and then a clear link to these elements needs to be maintained through the use of consistent language throughout the claims. It is unclear what the intention of the claim language is with regards to the different naming conventions being used throughout the claim. Please establish proper antecedent basis and naming for each element within the claim.
Claims 2-7 depend directly from claim 1 and any instance of a limitation regarding the communication signals should be further addressed to clarify what signal is being claimed.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the respective signal parameter value" in line 6 and “the respective wireless transmitter device” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the respective wireless receiver device” in line 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 incorporates claim 1, but again recites ‘emitting wireless radiofrequency signals’ compounding the lack of antecedent clarity with the signal limitations noted within claim 1.
Claim 9 depends directly from claim 8 and any instance of a limitation regarding the communication signals should be further addressed to clarify what signal is being claimed.
Claim 9 recites the limitation " the respective wireless radiofrequency communication signal" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 incorporates claim 1, but again recites ‘wireless radiofrequency signals’ compounding the lack of antecedent clarity with the signal limitations noted within claim 1.
Claim 11 depends directly from claim 10 and any instance of a limitation regarding the communication signals should be further addressed to clarify what signal is being claimed.
Claim 10 recites the limitation " the respective wireless communication signal" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 incorporates claim 1, but again recites ‘wireless radiofrequency signals’ compounding the lack of antecedent clarity with the signal limitations noted within claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the path" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the respective control data" in line 9-10 and “the respective wireless communication signal” in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites ‘A method according to claim 13’ which is incorrect antecedent structure, it should be ‘The method according to claim 13’
Claim 14 calls back in dependency to claim 13 twice in the same claim, in line 1 and again in line 6. In line 6, repeating the dependency to claim 13 is structurally incorrect and creates an indefinite nature to the scope of the claims, this claim needs to be corrected to properly state the desired dependency of the claim as well as clearly state the function of the claimed limitations. A suggestion would be to remove line 6 all together and simply state the design is “further comprising” after the preamble.
Claim 14 recites “a subject” in line 3, creating antecedent confusion with the same limitation claimed in claim 13.
Claim 14 recites “a subject-activity of a subject” in lines 2-3 and then again recites “a subject-activity of a subject” in line 11, creating antecedent confusion as the same element is being established twice.
Claim 1 recites “for subject sensing” in line 2 and then recites “a subject” in line 10, creating antecedent confusion as the same element is being established twice without a clear naming designation to clarify if this is intended to be a unique element.
Claim 10 again recites ‘a subject’ while also claiming the device of claim 1, creating antecedent confusion in the claims.
Claim 12 again recites ‘a subject’ while also claiming the device of claim 1, creating antecedent confusion in the claims.
Claim 13 recites “for subject sensing” in line 2 and then recites “a subject” in line 10, creating antecedent confusion as the same element is being established twice without a clear naming designation to clarify if this is intended to be a unique element.
Claim 15 incorporates claim 13 and is thus similarly rejected.
There are several instances of antecedent confusion in the base independent claims, and additional instances where nesting the base claims within the body of other claims has created additional antecedent confusion. The Examiner has made an effort to note them all above, however please consider all limitations of the claims when considering amendments to ensure that proper antecedent basis and consistent naming terms are being used throughout the claims to properly address the indefiniteness rejections with regards to the scope of the claim language.
Claim limitations:
“a signal-emission control device for” in claims 1, 8, 10, 12, 13
“an emission value ascertainment unit configured to” in claim 1
“a transmitter control unit … configured to” in claim 1
“a receiver control unit … configured to” in claim 1
“a context data ascertainment unit that is configured to” in claim 3
“a scheduling unit configured to” in claim 6
“an encryption unit… configured to” in claim 7
“a radiofrequency communication signal emission unit … configured to” in claim 8
“a radiofrequency communication signal receiving unit configured to” in claim 10
“a control data input unit configured to” in claim 10
a subject activity determination unit … configured to” in claim 10
“a decryption unit ... configured to” in claim 11
“a subject-activity sensing arrangement configured to” in claim 12
“a subject-activity sensing arrangement configured to” in claim 14
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In the above noted claim elements, each limitation triggers a 112f interpretation based on the three-prong analysis, but then fails to provide specific structural disclosure or sufficient computer and algorithm combinations for each respective element. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Beg (US Pub 20200351576, see IDS).
Re claim 1, Beg discloses a signal-emission control device for preventing illegitimate use (intended use recitation MPEP 2111.02) of wireless radiofrequency, RF, communication signals for subject sensing (Fig 2A/B, Par 24, 55-57) by controlling emission of wireless radiofrequency communication signals Fig 3, Fig 7A/B, Fig 15; Par 67-68, 91-95, 99-102, 124-125, 129-130) in a wireless communication network that includes at least one wireless transmitter device and at least one wireless receiver device (Fig 1, Par 33-39; Fig 2A/B, Par 45-48; Fig 6), the emission being controllable with respect to one or more variable signal parameters (Fig 3, Par 67-68; Fig 7A/B, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15, Par 124-125, 129-130), the signal-emission control device comprising:
an emission-value ascertainment unit configured to ascertain variation-data indicative of an emission-value variation of signal-parameter values of one or more of the signal parameters (Fig 2A/B el 214A moves to 214B through noted signal paths; Par 46, 48-54, 73 – motion or presence is determined through perturbation and changes to the signals and their associated paths between the devices in the environment), wherein, the signal parameters are parameters of the RF communication signals that are influenceable by an activity state of a subject within or through the path that the RF communication signals travel from the at least one transmitter device to the at least one receiver device (Fig 2A/B el 214A moves to 214B through noted signal paths; Par 46, 48-54, 73 – motion or presence is determined through perturbation and changes to the signals and their associated paths between the devices in the environment);
a transmitter-control unit connected to the emission-value ascertainment unit and configured to control operation of the at least one of the transmitter devices for transmitting the wireless radiofrequency communication signals (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1504/1506, 124-125, 129-130-determining where motion is detected and is not detected and providing updates and refinements to characteristics of devices in environment) according to the ascertained emission-value variation of the respective signal-parameter value (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1506/1508, 124-125, 129-130 – control signals to control characteristics of transmitted signals to achieve additional refinement to the motion detection); and
a receiver-control unit connected to the emission-value ascertainment unit and configured to control a provision (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1504/1506, 124-125, 129-130-determining where motion is detected and is not detected and providing updates and refinements to characteristics of devices in environment), to at least one of the wireless receiver devices of the communication network (Par 29-31, 66-67, 93-95, topology information for the given sampling interval), of control-data indicative of the signal-parameter value of the one or more signal parameters according to which the transmitter device has emitted the wireless radiofrequency communication signal (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 29-31, 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1506/1508, 124-125, 129-130-control change/update and then perform second/additional sampling action, second motion detection output).
Re claim 2, Beg discloses the signal-emission control device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the emission-value ascertainment unit is configured to ascertain variation-data indicative of the emission-value variation of the signal-parameter value of one or more signal parameters (Fig 2A/B el 214A moves to 214B through noted signal paths; Par 46, 48-54, 73 – motion or presence is determined through perturbation and changes to the signals and their associated paths between the devices in the environment) that include at least one of a signal power (Par 100), a signal center frequency, a signal beam-form of the emitted wireless radiofrequency communication signal (Par 26, 55-56), or any combination thereof.
Re claim 3, Beg discloses the signal-emission control device of claim 1, and further discloses wherein the emission-value ascertainment unit comprises a context-data ascertainment unit (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1504/1506, 124-125, 129-130-determining where motion is detected and is not detected and providing updates and refinements to characteristics of devices in environment) that is configured to ascertain network-context data pertaining to the devices in the wireless communication network (Par 29-31) or to the wireless radiofrequency communication signals provided or received by the devices in the wireless communication network (Par 26, 55-56, 99-102), and
wherein the emission-value ascertainment unit is configured to determine the variation-data using predetermined associations between the network-context data and the signal- parameter values (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1506/1508, 124-125, 129-132-new cycles with updated characteristics).
Re claim 4, Beg discloses the signal-emission control device of claim 3, and further discloses wherein the context-data ascertainment unit is further configured to determine (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1504/1506, 124-125, 129-130), using the network- context data, device-position information indicative of an installation-location of the devices belonging to the communication network (Par 38-39, 42, 70, 73, 78-80; Fig 4 – device zones) or of a distance amount between the devices (Par 100-101 – distance between devices), and
to determine the variation-data using predetermined associations between the installation- location or the distance amount and the signal-parameter values (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 70-71, 78-80; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1506/1508, 124-125, 129-132-new cycles with updated characteristics).
Re claim 5, Beg discloses the signal-emission control device of claim 3, and further discloses wherein the context-data ascertainment unit is further configured to ascertain signal-data indicative of reception-signal-parameter values of the one or more signal parameters of the wireless radiofrequency communication signals received by the at least one wireless receiver (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1504/1506, 124-125, 129-130) device during a predetermined monitoring time-span (Figures 4, 5A/B; Par 29, 31, 45, 60, 65-68, 71-75, -updating at known intervals, changes to sensing signals after given time periods), and wherein the emission-value ascertainment unit is configured to determine the variation data in accordance with the ascertained reception-signal-parameter values (Figures 4, 5A/B; Par 29, 31, 45, 60, 65-68, 71-75, -updating sensing rates and characteristics).
Re claim 6, Beg discloses the signal-emission control device of claim 1, further comprising:
a scheduling unit configured to ascertain operation-trigger data indicative of predetermined operation-conditions that have to be fulfilled for activating control of emission of the wireless radiofrequency communication signals in accordance with the ascertained emission value variation of the respective signal-parameter value (Figures 4, 5A/B; Par 29, 31, 45, 60, 65-68, 71-75, -determination of motion or lack of motion over time periods as triggering event results in adjustments to signal characteristics or to rate changes or to inclusion/exclusion from monitoring), and wherein
the transmitter control unit is further connected to the scheduling unit and configured to determine whether the predetermined operation-conditions are fulfilled and to control the operation of the respective wireless transmitter device according to the variation-data further upon fulfilment of the operation-conditions (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1504/1506, 124-125, 129-130-determining where motion is detected and is not detected and providing updates and refinements to characteristics of devices in environment).
Re claim 8, Beg discloses a wireless transmitter device for controllably emitting wireless radiofrequency communication signals in accordance with a respective signal- parameter value of one or more signal parameters (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1504/1506, 124-125, 129-130-determining where motion is detected and is not detected and providing updates and refinements to characteristics of devices in environment), the transmitter device comprising:
a signal-emission control device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above);
a radiofrequency communication signal emission unit connected to the signal- emission control device (Fig 2A/B el 214A moves to 214B through noted signal paths; Par 46, 48-54, 73) and configured to provide the wireless radiofrequency communication signals in accordance with the emission-value variation ascertained by the signal-emission control device (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1506/1508, 124-125, 129-130-control change/update and then perform second/additional sampling action, second motion detection output).
Re claim 9, Beg discloses the wireless transmitter device of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the receiver control unit is configured to provide the control-data in the respective wireless radiofrequency communication signal that has been transmitted using the respective signal- parameter value (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 29-31, 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1506/1508, 124-125, 129-130-control change/update and then perform second/additional sampling action, second motion detection output).
Re claim 10, Beg discloses a wireless receiver device, comprising:
a radiofrequency communication signal receiving unit (Fig 1, Par 33-39; Fig 2A/B, Par 45-48; Fig 6), configured to receive wireless radiofrequency communication signals from a transmitter device (Fig 1, Par 33-39; Fig 2A/B, Par 45-48; Fig 6);
a control-data input unit, configured to receive, under control of a signal- emission control device (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1506/1508, 124-125, 129-130-control change/update and then perform second/additional sampling action, second motion detection output) in accordance with claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
control-data indicative of the signal-parameter value of the one or more signal parameter according to which the transmitter device has emitted the wireless radiofrequency communication signal (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1504/1506, 124-125, 129-130-determining where motion is detected and is not detected and providing updates and refinements to characteristics of devices in environment); and
a subject-activity determination unit (Fig 2A/B indoor area movement of 214; Par 46, 48-54, 73, 65-68, 99-102 – motion or presence is determined at each sampling interval) connected to the radiofrequency communication signal receiving unit and to the control-data input unit (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1506/1508, 124-125, 129-130-control change/update and then perform second/additional sampling action, second motion detection output) and configured:
to determine a reception-signal value of the one or more of the signal parameters (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1506/1508, 124-125, 129-130-control change/update and then perform second/additional sampling action, second motion detection output);
to determine a subject-activity of a subject within an activity sensing volume based on the determined reception-signal value and on the received control data indicative of the signal- parameter value of the respective wireless communication signal (Fig 2A/B indoor area movement of 214; Par 46, 48-54, 73, 65-68, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1506/1508, 124-125, 129-130 – motion or presence is determined at each sampling interval).
Re claim 12, Beg discloses a subject-activity sensing arrangement configured to
determine a subject activity of a subject within an activity-sensing volume based on variations of a value of at least one signal parameter of wireless radiofrequency communication signals provided by at least one transmitter device to an at least one receiver device (Fig 2A/B el 214A moves to 214B through noted signal paths; Par 46, 48-54, 73 – motion or presence is determined through perturbation and changes to the signals and their associated paths between the devices in the environment), the subject-activity sensing arrangement comprising at least one signal-emission control device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above),
at least one wireless transmitter device (Fig 1, Par 33-39; Fig 2A/B, Par 45-48; Fig 6) configured to provide wireless radiofrequency communication signals with different values of at least one signal-parameter (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 29-31, 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1506/1508, 124-125, 129-130-control change/update and then perform second/additional sampling action, second motion detection output) and at least one wireless receiver device (Fig 1, Par 33-39; Fig 2A/B, Par 45-48; Fig 6).
Re claim 13, Beg discloses a method for preventing illegitimate use (intended use recitation MPEP 2111.02) of wireless radiofrequency, RF, communication signals for subject sensing (Fig 2A/B, Par 24, 55-57); by controlling operation of a signal emission control device (Fig 3, Fig 7A/B, Fig 15; Par 67-68, 91-95, 99-102, 124-125, 129-130), for controlling emission of wireless radio frequency communication signals in a communication network comprising at least one transmitter device and at least one receiver device (Fig 1, Par 33-39; Fig 2A/B, Par 45-48; Fig 6; 65-68, 99-102, 130), the emission being controllable in accordance with a respective signal parameter value of one or more signal parameters (Fig 3, Par 67-68; Fig 7A/B, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15, Par 124-125, 129-130), the method comprising:
ascertaining variation-data indicative of an emission-value variation of the respective signal-parameter value of one or more of the signal parameters (Fig 2A/B el 214A moves to 214B through noted signal paths; Par 46, 48-54, 73 – motion or presence is determined through perturbation and changes to the signals and their associated paths between the devices in the environment), wherein, the signal parameters are parameters of the RF communication signals that are influenceable by an activity state of a subject within or through the path that the RF communication signals travel from the at least one transmitter device to the at least one receiver device (Fig 2A/B el 214A moves to 214B through noted signal paths; Par 46, 48-54, 73 – motion or presence is determined through perturbation and changes to the signals and their associated paths between the devices in the environment);
controlling operation of a respective transmitter device for transmitting the wireless radiofrequency communication signals according to the ascertained emission-value variation of the respective signal-parameter value (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1504/1506, 124-125, 129-130-determining where motion is detected and is not detected and providing updates and refinements to characteristics of devices in environment); and
controlling a provision of control-data indicative of the signal-parameter value of the one or more signal parameter according to which the transmitter device has emitted the wireless radiofrequency communication signal (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1506/1508, 124-125, 129-130 – control signals to control characteristics of transmitted signals to achieve additional refinement to the motion detection).
Re claim 14, Beg discloses method according to claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above) for controlling operation of a subject-activity sensing arrangement (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1504/1506, 124-125, 129-130-determining where motion is detected and is not detected and providing updates and refinements to characteristics of devices in environment) that is configured to determine a subject-activity of a subject within an activity-sensing volume (Fig 2A/B indoor area; Par 46, 48-54, 73 – motion or presence is determined through perturbation and changes to the signals and their associated paths between the devices in the environment) based on variations of a value of at least one signal parameter P of wireless radiofrequency communication signals provided by at least one transmitter device to an at least one receiver device (Fig 2A/B el 214A moves to 214B through noted signal paths; Par 46, 48-54, 73 – motion or presence is determined through perturbation and changes to the signals and their associated paths between the devices in the environment), the method comprising:
performing the method of claim 13 (see rejection of claim 13 above);
[AltContent: rect]providing the wireless radiofrequency communication signals in accordance with the emission-value variation ascertained (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1506/1508, 124-125, 129-130-control change and then perform second action);
receiving the wireless radiofrequency communication signals and the respective control-data (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1506/1508, 124-125, 129-130-new cycles with updated characteristics);
determining a subject-activity of a subject within the activity-sensing volume (Fig 2A/B indoor area movement of 214; Par 46, 48-54, 73, 65-68, 99-102 – motion or presence is determined at each sampling interval) based on a determined reception-signal value of the received RF communication signal and on the received control data indicative of the signal-parameter value of the respective wireless communication signal (Fig 3, el 310/311, Par 65-68, 71; Fig 7A/B el 716/725, Par 91-95, 99-102; Fig 15 el 1506/1508, 124-125, 129-130-control change/update and then perform second/additional sampling action, second motion detection output).
Re claim 15, Beg discloses a computer program comprising instructions (Par 126-127, 133-137) which, when the program is executed by a computer (Par 126-127, 133-137), cause the computer to carry out the method of claim 13 (see rejection of 13 above).
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.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beg as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Sherwood (US Pub 20100176953).
Re claim 7, Beg discloses the signal-emission control device claim 1, but fails to explicitly disclose further comprising an encryption unit connected to the receiver-control unit and configured to encrypt the control data before being provided to the respective receiver device.
This design is however disclosed by Sherwood. Sherwood discloses an encryption unit connected to the receiver-control unit and configured to encrypt the control data (Par 14-17, 54-57) before being provided to the respective receiver device (Par 14-17, 54-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Beg in order to incorporate the encryption/decryption processing of Sherwood based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance it would be well known to use apply a layer of security such as encryption and decryption processing to a communicated signals in an environment, in this instance to protect the various communication elements used in the detection processing from being compromised, thereby improving both the overall privacy of the system as well as reducing interference and error in the communication of updates and adjustments improving the overall ability of the design to safely and accurately perform the detection processing.
Re claim 11, Beg discloses the wireless receiver device of claim 10, but fails however to explicitly disclose further comprising a decryption unit connected to the control-data input unit and to the subject-activity determination unit and configured to decrypt encrypted control-data.
This design is however disclosed by Sherwood. Sherwood discloses a decryption unit (Par 14-17, 54-57) connected to the control-data input unit and to the subject-activity determination unit (Par 14-17, 54-57) and configured to decrypt encrypted control-data (Par 14-17, 54-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the disclosure of Beg in order to incorporate the encryption/decryption processing of Sherwood based on the rationale of the use of a known technique to improve similar designs in the same way, in this instance it would be well known to use apply a layer of security such as encryption and decryption processing to a communicated signals in an environment, in this instance to protect the various communication elements used in the detection processing from being compromised, thereby improving both the overall privacy of the system as well as reducing interference and error in the communication of updates and adjustments improving the overall ability of the design to safely and accurately perform the detection processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R NEFF whose telephone number is (571)270-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 5:30am-2:00pm.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/MICHAEL R NEFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631