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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 21, 2023; and March 05, 2024; is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on December 21, 2023 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “from environment” is missing a word, such as “from the environment”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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:
Claims 1, 20, 25-26: Claim limitation “active reflected wave detector to measure wave reflections” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “detector” coupled with functional language “to measure” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier that has a known structural meaning before the phrase “detector”.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claim 1: “active reflected wave detector” refers to the specification pages 13-14, “In some implementations, the active reflected wave detector 206 may provide both a ranging based output and a Doppler-based output based on measuring wave reflections from the environment…. Preferably, the active reflected wave detector 206 is a radar sensor.”
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, 5, 7-11, 16-18, 20, 22 and 24-29 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, “a person”; “a nearest person”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if they are referring to "the object" as the object is identified as a human which is another word for person and is already claimed as a person nearest to the wave detector, it is unclear how the claim language is currently written and the scope of the claims is unclear. Since the object is identified as a person, it is understood that “a nearest person in the environment” is the same thing but claimed with different language. It will be interpreted that the claim is intended to read detecting if a person has fallen in the environment by determining if the person nearest to the wave detector has fallen. It is further unclear of the terms relationship to “a person” and “at least one person” recited in the preamble. Claim 20 has the same rejections.
Claim 5 recites the limitation, “a person”. It is unclear what person out of the plurality of options this is referring to. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear of the link.
Claim 8 recites the limitation, “the multiple people”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation, “A device according to claim 20.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should read “The device according to claim 20. Claim 24 recites the same issues.
Claim 25 recites the limitation, “a person” in the last limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear of the link to the preamble limitations. Claim 26 has the same rejections.
Dependent claims are rejected as depending on a rejected base claim.
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, 7-10, 16-18, 20, 22, 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cuddihy et al. (US 2013/0002434 A1) (“Cuddihy”).
Regarding claim 1, Cuddihy discloses A computer implemented method for detecting if a person has fallen in an environment comprising at least one person (Abstract and entire document), the method comprising:
controlling an active reflected wave detector to measure wave reflections from environment to receive measured wave reflection data that is obtained by the active reflected wave detector (FIG. 1 “radar systems 106, 108” see [0020], “Accordingly, the FD system 100 includes radar systems 106, 108 coupled to antennas 110, 112, respectively for monitoring the designated space 102 for human fall events.” Within space 102 as the environment);
detecting a plurality of objects from the measured wave reflection data that is obtained by the active reflected wave detector (FIG. 1 and [0019], “The designated space 102, for example, includes one or more objects 104, such as chairs, beds, tables, columns and cupboards disposed in one or more portions of the designated space 102.” And [0022], “Particularly, in one embodiment, the radar systems 106, 108 transmit electromagnetic signals towards desired portions of the designated space 102 and sense corresponding echo signals reflected from objects 104, persons and/or animals disposed in the designated space 102.”);
identifying wave reflection data associated with an object, of the plurality of objects, that is nearest to the active reflected wave detector and is identified as being human ([0026], “Although FIG. 1 illustrates two radar systems 106, 108, and two antennas 110, 112, as previously noted, fewer or more radar systems and antennas may be employed to monitor areas of different sizes. In one implementation, for example, a single radar coupled to an antenna that successfully constrains the radar signal close the floor identifies a subject as the fallen person 116 upon detecting presence of motion and physiological parameters corresponding to the subject close to floor.” Wave reflection data including from person 116 which is the object that is closest to the detector and is human); and
detecting if a person has fallen in the environment by determining a fall status of a nearest person in the environment using the wave reflection data associated with the object in the environment that is nearest to the active reflected wave detector ([0026], “Although FIG. 1 illustrates two radar systems 106, 108, and two antennas 110, 112, as previously noted, fewer or more radar systems and antennas may be employed to monitor areas of different sizes. In one implementation, for example, a single radar coupled to an antenna that successfully constrains the radar signal close the floor identifies a subject as the fallen person 116 upon detecting presence of motion and physiological parameters corresponding to the subject close to floor.” Wave reflection data including from person 116 which is the object that is closest to the detector and is human).
Regarding claim 5, Cuddihy discloses The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein if the fall status of the nearest person is that they are in a non-fall state, the method comprising detecting that a person has not fallen in the environment ([0048], “Upon determining the presence of a person in the designated space, the processing unit 208 further determines the state of the person based on whether the physiological parameters were detected proximate the reference plane 114, above the reference line 118, or in both these portions of the designated space 102. Particularly, in one embodiment, the processing unit configures the FD system 200 to monitor the desired portions for a determined duration of time, for example, 90 seconds. Generally, the determined duration of time corresponds to a recovery time during which the person may get up subsequent to a fall. The processing unit 208, however, may vary the determined period of time based on other parameters such as a location of the fall and/or the presence of another person in the designated space 102.” It is interpreted that if no fall is detected then it is a non-fall state).
Regarding claim 7, Cuddihy discloses The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the detecting if a person has fallen in the environment comprises disregarding wave reflection data associated with any objects that are not nearest to the active reflected wave detector ([0022] – [0023] discussing determining if object or person, radar system then monitors person for fall event, thus disregarding radar information from the objects that are not nearest to the active reflected wave detector).
Regarding claim 8, Cuddihy discloses The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of objects comprises the multiple people ([0048], “Upon determining the presence of a person in the designated space, the processing unit 208 further determines the state of the person based on whether the physiological parameters were detected proximate the reference plane 114, above the reference line 118, or in both these portions of the designated space 102. Particularly, in one embodiment, the processing unit configures the FD system 200 to monitor the desired portions for a determined duration of time, for example, 90 seconds. Generally, the determined duration of time corresponds to a recovery time during which the person may get up subsequent to a fall. The processing unit 208, however, may vary the determined period of time based on other parameters such as a location of the fall and/or the presence of another person in the designated space 102.” Discussing multiple people).
Regarding claim 9, Cuddihy discloses The computer implemented method of claim 8, wherein different people correspond to different objects of the plurality of objects ([0048], “Upon determining the presence of a person in the designated space, the processing unit 208 further determines the state of the person based on whether the physiological parameters were detected proximate the reference plane 114, above the reference line 118, or in both these portions of the designated space 102. Particularly, in one embodiment, the processing unit configures the FD system 200 to monitor the desired portions for a determined duration of time, for example, 90 seconds. Generally, the determined duration of time corresponds to a recovery time during which the person may get up subsequent to a fall. The processing unit 208, however, may vary the determined period of time based on other parameters such as a location of the fall and/or the presence of another person in the designated space 102.” Discussing multiple people).
Regarding claim 10, Cuddihy discloses The computer implemented method of claim 8, wherein the plurality of objects further comprise one or more phantom objects (FIG. 1 and [0019], “The designated space 102, for example, includes one or more objects 104, such as chairs, beds, tables, columns and cupboards disposed in one or more portions of the designated space 102.” And [0022], “Particularly, in one embodiment, the radar systems 106, 108 transmit electromagnetic signals towards desired portions of the designated space 102 and sense corresponding echo signals reflected from objects 104, persons and/or animals disposed in the designated space 102. More particularly, the radar systems 106, 108 employ pulse sequences that are sensitive to physiological motion. In one embodiment, for example, the radar systems 106, 108 transmit two pulses at a high repetition rate (on the order of 5 MHz) for a carrier in the 5.8 GHz ISM band for monitoring the designated space 102.” See additionally [0044 – 0045] discussing filters, cleaning up the echo signals for such phantom signals to provide the real object data).
Regarding claim 16, Cuddihy discloses The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the fall status of the nearest person represents whether the nearest person is in a position representative of them having fallen, wherein the nearest person is in a fall state if the nearest person is in a position representative of them having fallen, and is in a non-fall state if the nearest person is not in a position representative of them having fallen ([0048], “Upon determining the presence of a person in the designated space, the processing unit 208 further determines the state of the person based on whether the physiological parameters were detected proximate the reference plane 114, above the reference line 118, or in both these portions of the designated space 102. Particularly, in one embodiment, the processing unit configures the FD system 200 to monitor the desired portions for a determined duration of time, for example, 90 seconds. Generally, the determined duration of time corresponds to a recovery time during which the person may get up subsequent to a fall. The processing unit 208, however, may vary the determined period of time based on other parameters such as a location of the fall and/or the presence of another person in the designated space 102.” It is interpreted that if no fall is detected then it is a non-fall state).
Regarding claim 17, Cuddihy discloses The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein said controlling the active reflected wave detector to measure wave reflections from the environment is performed in response to detecting motion in the environment based on receiving motion detection data from a motion detector (FIG. 1 and [0022], “Particularly, in one embodiment, the radar systems 106, 108 transmit electromagnetic signals towards desired portions of the designated space 102 and sense corresponding echo signals reflected from objects 104, persons and/or animals disposed in the designated space 102. More particularly, the radar systems 106, 108 employ pulse sequences that are sensitive to physiological motion. In one embodiment, for example, the radar systems 106, 108 transmit two pulses at a high repetition rate (on the order of 5 MHz) for a carrier in the 5.8 GHz ISM band for monitoring the designated space 102.”).
Regarding claim 18, Cuddihy discloses The computer implemented method of claim 17, wherein said controlling the active reflected wave detector to measure wave reflections from the environment is performed upon expiry of a time window that commences in response to the motion sensor detecting motion of a person ([0048], “Upon determining the presence of a person in the designated space, the processing unit 208 further determines the state of the person based on whether the physiological parameters were detected proximate the reference plane 114, above the reference line 118, or in both these portions of the designated space 102. Particularly, in one embodiment, the processing unit configures the FD system 200 to monitor the desired portions for a determined duration of time, for example, 90 seconds. Generally, the determined duration of time corresponds to a recovery time during which the person may get up subsequent to a fall. The processing unit 208, however, may vary the determined period of time based on other parameters such as a location of the fall and/or the presence of another person in the designated space 102.” ).
Regarding claim 20, Cuddihy discloses A device for detecting if a person has fallen in an environment comprising at least one person, the device comprising (Abstract and entire document):
a processor, wherein the processor is configured to (FIG. 1, processing unit 120 and see [0031], [0008], [0042] – [0043] processors):
control an active reflected wave detector to measure wave reflections from the environment to receive measured wave reflection data that is obtained by the active reflected wave detector (FIG. 1 “radar systems 106, 108” see [0020], “Accordingly, the FD system 100 includes radar systems 106, 108 coupled to antennas 110, 112, respectively for monitoring the designated space 102 for human fall events.” Within space 102 as the environment);
detect a plurality of objects from the measured wave reflection data that is obtained by the active reflected wave detector (FIG. 1 and [0019], “The designated space 102, for example, includes one or more objects 104, such as chairs, beds, tables, columns and cupboards disposed in one or more portions of the designated space 102.” And [0022], “Particularly, in one embodiment, the radar systems 106, 108 transmit electromagnetic signals towards desired portions of the designated space 102 and sense corresponding echo signals reflected from objects 104, persons and/or animals disposed in the designated space 102.”);
identify wave reflection data associated with an object, of the plurality of objects, that is nearest to the active reflected wave detector and is identified as being human ([0026], “Although FIG. 1 illustrates two radar systems 106, 108, and two antennas 110, 112, as previously noted, fewer or more radar systems and antennas may be employed to monitor areas of different sizes. In one implementation, for example, a single radar coupled to an antenna that successfully constrains the radar signal close the floor identifies a subject as the fallen person 116 upon detecting presence of motion and physiological parameters corresponding to the subject close to floor.” Wave reflection data including from person 116 which is the object that is closest to the detector and is human); and
detect if a person has fallen in the environment by determining a fall status using the wave reflection data associated with the object in the environment that is nearest to the active reflected wave detector ([0026], “Although FIG. 1 illustrates two radar systems 106, 108, and two antennas 110, 112, as previously noted, fewer or more radar systems and antennas may be employed to monitor areas of different sizes. In one implementation, for example, a single radar coupled to an antenna that successfully constrains the radar signal close the floor identifies a subject as the fallen person 116 upon detecting presence of motion and physiological parameters corresponding to the subject close to floor.” Wave reflection data including from person 116 which is the object that is closest to the detector and is human).
Regarding claim 22, Cuddihy discloses A device according to claim 20, wherein the device further comprises the active reflected wave detector (FIG. 1 “radar systems 106, 108” see [0020], “Accordingly, the FD system 100 includes radar systems 106, 108 coupled to antennas 110, 112, respectively for monitoring the designated space 102 for human fall events.” Within space 102 as the environment).
Regarding claim 24, Cuddihy discloses A device according to claim 20, wherein the processor is configured to disregard wave reflection data associated with any objects that are not nearest to the active reflected wave detector in said detection of a person has fallen in the environment ([0022] – [0023] discussing determining if object or person, radar system then monitors person for fall event, thus disregarding radar information from the objects that are not nearest to the active reflected wave detector).
Regarding claim 25, Cuddihy discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions for detecting if a person has fallen in an environment comprising at least one person, the instructions when executed by a processor cause the processor to (Abstract and entire document):
control an active reflected wave detector to measure wave reflections from the environment to receive measured wave reflection data that is obtained by the active reflected wave detector (FIG. 1 “radar systems 106, 108” see [0020], “Accordingly, the FD system 100 includes radar systems 106, 108 coupled to antennas 110, 112, respectively for monitoring the designated space 102 for human fall events.” Within space 102 as the environment);
detect a plurality of objects from the measured wave reflection data that is obtained by the active reflected wave detector (FIG. 1 and [0019], “The designated space 102, for example, includes one or more objects 104, such as chairs, beds, tables, columns and cupboards disposed in one or more portions of the designated space 102.” And [0022], “Particularly, in one embodiment, the radar systems 106, 108 transmit electromagnetic signals towards desired portions of the designated space 102 and sense corresponding echo signals reflected from objects 104, persons and/or animals disposed in the designated space 102.”);
identify wave reflection data associated with an object, of the plurality of objects, that is nearest to the active reflected wave detector and is identified as being human ([0026], “Although FIG. 1 illustrates two radar systems 106, 108, and two antennas 110, 112, as previously noted, fewer or more radar systems and antennas may be employed to monitor areas of different sizes. In one implementation, for example, a single radar coupled to an antenna that successfully constrains the radar signal close the floor identifies a subject as the fallen person 116 upon detecting presence of motion and physiological parameters corresponding to the subject close to floor.” Wave reflection data including from person 116 which is the object that is closest to the detector and is human), and
detect if a person has fallen in the environment by determining the fall status using the wave reflection data associated with the object in the environment that is nearest to the active reflected wave detector ([0026], “Although FIG. 1 illustrates two radar systems 106, 108, and two antennas 110, 112, as previously noted, fewer or more radar systems and antennas may be employed to monitor areas of different sizes. In one implementation, for example, a single radar coupled to an antenna that successfully constrains the radar signal close the floor identifies a subject as the fallen person 116 upon detecting presence of motion and physiological parameters corresponding to the subject close to floor.” Wave reflection data including from person 116 which is the object that is closest to the detector and is human).
Regarding claim 26, Cuddihy discloses A system for detecting if a person has fallen in an environment comprising at least one person, the system comprising at least one processor configured to perform a method of (Abstract and entire document):
controlling an active reflected wave detector to measure wave reflections from the environment to receive measured wave reflection data that is obtained by the active reflected wave detector (FIG. 1 “radar systems 106, 108” see [0020], “Accordingly, the FD system 100 includes radar systems 106, 108 coupled to antennas 110, 112, respectively for monitoring the designated space 102 for human fall events.” Within space 102 as the environment);
detecting a plurality of objects from the measured wave reflection data that is obtained by the active reflected wave detector (FIG. 1 and [0019], “The designated space 102, for example, includes one or more objects 104, such as chairs, beds, tables, columns and cupboards disposed in one or more portions of the designated space 102.” And [0022], “Particularly, in one embodiment, the radar systems 106, 108 transmit electromagnetic signals towards desired portions of the designated space 102 and sense corresponding echo signals reflected from objects 104, persons and/or animals disposed in the designated space 102.”);
identifying wave reflection data associated with an object, of the plurality of objects, that is nearest to the active reflected wave detector and is identified as being human ([0026], “Although FIG. 1 illustrates two radar systems 106, 108, and two antennas 110, 112, as previously noted, fewer or more radar systems and antennas may be employed to monitor areas of different sizes. In one implementation, for example, a single radar coupled to an antenna that successfully constrains the radar signal close the floor identifies a subject as the fallen person 116 upon detecting presence of motion and physiological parameters corresponding to the subject close to floor.” Wave reflection data including from person 116 which is the object that is closest to the detector and is human); and
detecting if a person has fallen in the environment by determining a fall status using the wave reflection data associated with the object in the environment that is nearest to the active reflected wave detector ([0026], “Although FIG. 1 illustrates two radar systems 106, 108, and two antennas 110, 112, as previously noted, fewer or more radar systems and antennas may be employed to monitor areas of different sizes. In one implementation, for example, a single radar coupled to an antenna that successfully constrains the radar signal close the floor identifies a subject as the fallen person 116 upon detecting presence of motion and physiological parameters corresponding to the subject close to floor.” Wave reflection data including from person 116 which is the object that is closest to the detector and is human).
Regarding claim 27, Cuddihy discloses The system of claim 26, further comprising the active reflected wave detector (FIG. 1 “radar systems 106, 108” see [0020], “Accordingly, the FD system 100 includes radar systems 106, 108 coupled to antennas 110, 112, respectively for monitoring the designated space 102 for human fall events.” Within space 102 as the environment).
Regarding claim 28, Cuddihy discloses The system of claim 26, wherein the system comprises multiple processors to perform the method, the multiple processors distributed across two or more devices (FIG. 1 and [0031], “The FD system 100, in certain embodiments, further employs one or more processing units 120 coupled to the radar systems 106, 108 to ascertain one or more properties of a subject disposed in the designated space 102 based on the reflected radar signals. Although FIG. 1 illustrates the processing unit 120 as a separate entity, in certain embodiments, the radar systems 106, 108 may include circuitry that provides the functionality of the processing unit 120. Further, in certain embodiments, either a single processing unit processes data received from multiple radar systems, or each radar system may be associated with its own processing unit.”).
Regarding claim 29, Cuddihy discloses The computer implemented method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of objects comprise a single person in the environment and one or more phantom objects (FIG. 1 and [0019], “The designated space 102, for example, includes one or more objects 104, such as chairs, beds, tables, columns and cupboards disposed in one or more portions of the designated space 102.” And [0022], “Particularly, in one embodiment, the radar systems 106, 108 transmit electromagnetic signals towards desired portions of the designated space 102 and sense corresponding echo signals reflected from objects 104, persons and/or animals disposed in the designated space 102. More particularly, the radar systems 106, 108 employ pulse sequences that are sensitive to physiological motion. In one embodiment, for example, the radar systems 106, 108 transmit two pulses at a high repetition rate (on the order of 5 MHz) for a carrier in the 5.8 GHz ISM band for monitoring the designated space 102.” See additionally [0044 – 0045] discussing filters, cleaning up the echo signals for such phantom signals to provide the real object data).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cuddihy et al. (US 2013/0002434 A1) (“Cuddihy”) in view of Shin et al. (US 2023/0018686 A1) (“Shin”).
Regarding claim 11, Cuddihy discloses The computer implemented method of claim 1, Cuddihy fails to disclose the method comprising supplying the wave reflection data, that is associated with the object in the environment that is nearest to the active reflected wave detector, to a classifier that has been trained with training data, the classifier configured so that the detecting if a person has fallen in the environment is based on the training data and the wave reflection data that is associated with the object in the environment that is nearest to the active reflected wave detector.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Shin teaches the method comprising supplying the wave reflection data, that is associated with the object in the environment that is nearest to the active reflected wave detector, to a classifier that has been trained with training data, the classifier configured so that the detecting if a person has fallen in the environment is based on the training data and the wave reflection data that is associated with the object in the environment that is nearest to the active reflected wave detector ([0046], “Each of these features may be assigned different weights as part of the pre-trained machine learning model based on the determined relative importance for correctly identifying a person falling. The weightings may be assigned based on a training process that was performed using a training set of data that included data indicative of a person falling and data of a person that did not fall. The training process may have involved creating a machine learning model that can classify as many falls and non-falls accurately as possible. For instance, a training set of data that includes a large amount of data having a known classification (i.e., fall-present, no fall present) may be fed to a machine learning engine”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as taught by Cuddihy to include the method comprising supplying the wave reflection data, that is associated with the object in the environment that is nearest to the active reflected wave detector, to a classifier that has been trained with training data, the classifier configured so that the detecting if a person has fallen in the environment is based on the training data and the wave reflection data that is associated with the object in the environment that is nearest to the active reflected wave detector as taught by Shin to correctly identify falling ([0046], “Each of these features may be assigned different weights as part of the pre-trained machine learning model based on the determined relative importance for correctly identifying a person falling.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US 2019/0090786 A1) (“Kim”) at least fig. 2 and associated paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A TOMBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6851. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 7:00-16:00, F 7:00-11:00(Eastern).
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, Robert Chen can be reached on 571-272-3672. 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.
/JOSEPH A TOMBERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3791