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 statements (IDS) submitted on 12-20-2023 and 11-21-2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the second living body must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-8 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.
As per claims 1 and 8, the phrase “causing each of the N receivers to receive a second reception signal in advance…” makes the claim indefinite. It is unclear what this second reception signal is in advance of. Further clarification is required.
As per claims 1 and 18, the second living body makes the claim indefinite. It is unclear where this second body is located as the claim makes clear the receivers surround a first body. Further clarification on the second body and its purpose is required.
Claims 2-7 are rejection as per their dependency on the claims above.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 8 as best understood by examiner is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakayama, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0055437, published March 1, 2018.
As per claims 1 and 8, Nakayama discloses an estimation device comprising:
M transmitting antenna elements arranged around a predetermined range that includes a first living body, where M is an integer greater than or equal to 1, the M transmitting antenna elements each transmitting a first transmission signal to the predetermined range; N receivers arranged around the predetermined range and each including a receiving antenna element, where N is an integer greater than or equal to 3, the N receivers each receiving a first reception signal for a predetermined period of time by using the receiving antenna element, the first reception signal including a reflected signal obtained by the first transmission signal reflecting off the first living body (Nakayama, Fig. 1);
memory that stores a teaching signal that corresponds to M x N second reception signals obtained by causing each of the N receivers to receive a second reception signal in advance, the second reception signal including a reflected signal obtained by a second transmission signal reflecting off a second living body, the second transmission signal being transmitted from the M transmitting antenna elements to the second living body (Nakayama, Fig. 2, 41 and 42);
a first vector calculator that calculates a teaching first vector from the teaching signal and a test first vector from M x N first reception signals obtained by causing each of the N receivers to receive the first reception signal (Nakayama, ¶58, teacher and observed);
and an estimator that calculates a plurality of features from the teaching first vector and the test first vector and estimates identification information on the first living body by a predetermined method using the plurality of features calculated (Nakayama, ¶112).
As per claim 5, Nakayama further discloses the estimation device according to claim 1, wherein the estimator identifies the first living body by using a total sum of a predetermined number of features among the plurality of features (Nakayama, ¶102 where multiple features are identified).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama in view of Iizuka, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0195997, published June 27, 2019.
As per claim 2, Nakayama discloses the vector calculator of claim 1 but fails to disclose calculating the matrix through decomposition.
Iizuka teaches living body detection through decomposition of return signals (¶109).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use decomposition, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in a combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184. The examiner submits there are many ways one of ordinary skill in the art may choose to analyze data.
As per claims 3 and 4, Nakayama as modified by Iizuka discloses the estimation device according to The estimation device according to wherein the first vector calculator: calculates the teaching first vector that includes an infinite sequence as a component, the infinite sequence including a plurality of eigenvalues sorted in descending order, the plurality of eigenvalues being obtained by eigenvalue decomposition of the sorted elements of the teaching second matrix; and calculates the test first vector that includes an infinite sequence as a component, the infinite sequence including a plurality of eigenvalues sorted in descending order, the plurality of eigenvalues being obtained by eigenvalue decomposition of the sorted elements of the received second matrix (Iizuka, ¶28-29).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use eigenvalues or singular values, 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 Nakayama in providing the required living body analysis. Examiner notes that the applicant also suggests various variables for the calculations.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama in view of Matuszak, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0326367, filed October 20, 2020.
As per claims 6 and 7, Nakayama discloses the device of claim 1 including estimating position of the living body (¶31) but fails to disclose vertical and horizontal beam control.
Matuszak teaches beam steering (¶43).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilize beam steering in order to gain the obvious benefit of not having to physically reposition antennas.
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