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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4-15-2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to applicant’s argument that the prior art does not show a test vector, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant defines the test vector as the first bit of return signal data. This correlates with the ¶58 observation signal of Nakata, regardless of its name.
With respect to the amended claims, please see below.
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, 3, 4, 5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0055437, published March 1, 2018 in view of Iizuka, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2019/0195997, published June 27, 2019.
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 and ¶53 where teacher signals are stored before transmission);
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).
Nakayama discloses calculation of a second matrix (Fig. 13, S32) but fails to explicitly disclose using decomposition to determine the teaching and test first vectors.
Iizuka teaches decomposition in living body detection (¶109).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use decomposition, 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 accurate living body detection.
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.
As per claim 5, Nakayama as modified by Iizuka 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(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama and Iizuka as applied to claim 1 above and further 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 as modified by Iizuka 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.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights