DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
The drawings of February 20, 2024 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
The use of the terms IEEE, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, LTE, and 3GPP, each of which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. Each of these terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore each of these terms should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. THIS IS NOT AN OBJECTION TO THE SPECIFICATION.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW), not to any claim as it may be reproduced below.
Prior Art Rejections
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alexander et al (‘584).
The text of independent claim 1 is as follows:
“1. A method of operating an electronic device comprising: transmitting, using one or more antennas, radio-frequency signals into an environment that contains a moving object and a stationary object; receiving, using the one or more antennas, reflected radio-frequency signals from the environment; and estimating, using one or more processors, a boundary of the environment based on a motion, as identified from the reflected radio-frequency signals, of the moving object into a position between the electronic device and the stationary object.”
Looking, first, to independent claim 1, Alexander et al (‘584) plainly discloses, “A method of operating an electronic device” (line 1), noting, for example, column 2 at lines 3-8.
As for the first method step of claim 1, “transmitting, using one or more antennas, radio-frequency signals into an environment that contains a moving object and a stationary object” (lines 2-3), in Alexander et al (‘584), please see, for example, column 7 at lines 52-53 and column 4 at lines 52-64.
Next, with regard to the second method step of claim 1, “receiving, using the one or more antennas, reflected radio-frequency signals from the environment” (lines 4-5), in Alexander et al (‘584), please see, for example, column 4 at lines 52-64.
The third method step in independent claim 1, “estimating, using one or more processors, a boundary of the environment based on a motion, as identified from the reflected radio-frequency signals, of the moving object into a position between the electronic device and the stationary object” (lines 6-8) is met in Alexander et al (‘584) by the action of the “observation processor” and/or any of the discloses processors, noting, for example, column 3 at lines 49-52; column 8 at lines 42-62; and, column 16 at lines 50-67 (noting, especially, “constrained to be on a road with boundaries” at the end of the cited passage).
In that each and every claimed method step recited in independent claim 1 is plainly present in Alexander et al (‘584), independent claim 1 is anticipated by Alexander et al (‘584).
Next, regarding independent claim 10, the remarks are substantially those made above with regard to independent claim 1, in that claim 10 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method of independent claim 1. In addition, in Alexander et al (‘584), please, also, note, column 3 at lines 32-34; column 4 at line 9; column 6 at lines 35-38 and 55-67; column 16 at lines 50-67; and, column 17 at lines 26-31.
In that each and every claimed feature recited in independent claim 10 is plainly present in Alexander et al (‘584), independent claim 10 is anticipated by Alexander et al (‘584).
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 2, 3, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexander et al (‘584).
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of radio frequency systems.
With respect to the further limitations dependent claim 2, Alexander et al (‘584) discloses detecting if there is blocking (e.g., column 6, lines 36-37; column 11, lines 37-39; column 16, lines 62-67) by an object in the whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention likewise to detect blocking by an object in part to prevent collisions, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
The further limitations of dependent claim 3 are substantially-met by Alexander et al (‘584), except for the “using an analog-to-digital converter.” In that Alexander et al (‘584) discloses the use of digital processing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the use of “an analog-to-digital converter” for the advantage of converting analog signals into a form that can be digitally processed by the disclosed processors, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Next, taking the further limitations of dependent claims 8 and 9, in that Alexander et al (‘584) discloses the producing of output from the disclosed processors, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the use of output devices, such as a “display” or a “speaker,” for the advantage of readily providing a user with the processor output, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 11-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Claims
Claims 14-20 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Humphrey et al (‘663) is of general interest for the disclosure related to defining a boundary, noting Figures 3 and 6, and, the first sentence of paragraph [41].
Ignaczak et al (‘525) is of general interest for the disclosure related to boundary detection.
Bjornholt et al (‘157) is of general interest for disclosed use of fixed reflectors.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648