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 .
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.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 14 March, 2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “an method” which contains a typographical/ grammatical error. It is suggested to be amended to “[[an]]a method”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a system and a method and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claim(s) 1, 14, and 20:
Claim 1:
An method, comprising: determining, based on a phase and a magnitude of complex samples of a radar receive signal, an undesired high-amplitude signal component of the radar receive signal representing an interfering motion of a target in a field of view of a radar sensor; determining a residual signal based on the undesired high-amplitude signal component and the radar receive signal; and determining a desired low-amplitude signal component of the radar receive signal representing at least one of a target motion or an electromagnetic field of the target based on the residual signal.
Claim 14:
An apparatus comprising a processor, and a memory with instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, enable the apparatus to perform the steps of: determining, based on a phase and a magnitude of complex samples of a radar receive signal, an undesired high-amplitude signal component of the radar receive signal representing an interfering motion of a target in a field of view of a radar sensor; determining a residual signal based on the undesired high-amplitude signal component and the radar receive signal; and determining a desired low-amplitude signal component of the radar receive signal representing at least one of a target motion or an electromagnetic field of the target based on the residual signal.
Claim 20:
An apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to: determine, based on a phase and a magnitude of complex samples of a radar receive signal, an undesired high-amplitude signal component of the radar receive signal representing an interfering motion of a target in a field of view of a radar sensor; determine a residual signal based on the undesired high-amplitude signal component and the radar receive signal; and determine a desired low-amplitude signal component of the radar receive signal representing at least one of a target motion or an electromagnetic field of the target based on the residual signal.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 14 recites an apparatus, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. Claim 20 recites an apparatus, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Independent claim(s) 14 and 20 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain sufficiently the same limitations as those noted for claim 1 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. Claim 1 recites “An method, comprising: determining, based on a phase and a magnitude of complex samples of a radar receive signal, an undesired high-amplitude signal component of the radar receive signal representing an interfering motion of a target in a field of view of a radar sensor; determining a residual signal based on the undesired high-amplitude signal component and the radar receive signal; and determining a desired low-amplitude signal component of the radar receive signal representing at least one of a target motion or an electromagnetic field of the target based on the residual signal.”
The focus of the claim (i.e., “determining, based on a phase and a magnitude of complex samples of a radar receive signal, an undesired high-amplitude signal component of the radar receive signal representing an interfering motion of a target in a field of view of a radar sensor; determining a residual signal based on the undesired high-amplitude signal component and the radar receive signal; and determining a desired low-amplitude signal component of the radar receive signal representing at least one of a target motion or an electromagnetic field of the target based on the residual signal”) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are simply mathematical concepts (e.g., algorithms, subtraction, spatial relationships, geometry, etc.). When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, “determining, based on a phase and a magnitude of complex samples of a radar receive signal, an undesired high-amplitude signal component of the radar receive signal representing an interfering motion of a target in a field of view of a radar sensor; determining a residual signal based on the undesired high-amplitude signal component and the radar receive signal; and determining a desired low-amplitude signal component of the radar receive signal representing at least one of a target motion or an electromagnetic field of the target based on the residual signal” are simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The limitation(s) “a radar sensor”, and “a processor” [claim 14], and “a memory” [claim 14] are considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The limitation(s) of “a radar sensor”, and “a processor” [claim 14], and “a memory” [claim 14] represent no more than a generic device, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to mere physicality/ tangibility and a technological field of use. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mental process of claim 1. For example, the use of the “a radar sensor”, and “a processor” [claim 14], and “a memory” [claim 14] fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The recitation(s) of the “a radar sensor”, and “a processor” [claim 14], and “a memory” [claim 14] are at a high level of generality and is just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation(s) therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more.
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the claim in this case specifies what information it is desirable to gather and analyze; but it does not include any requirement for performing the claimed function(s) by use of anything not entirely conventional and generic.
Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 1 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim(s) 1, 14, and 20 are ineligible.
Claims 2-13, and 15-19:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim(s) 2-13 recite(s) a method, and therefore, fall under a process. Claim(s) 15-19 recite(s) an apparatus, and therefore, fall under a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 3-13 and 15-19 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same or sufficiently similar defects as those noted for claim 2 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the method of claim 1 which recites an abstract idea (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the abstract idea of claim 1. That is, the claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually. Therefore, the claim does not state an inventive concept.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 2-13, and 15-19 are ineligible.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
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) 1-6, 13-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (US 2018/0263502 A1 “LIN”).
Regarding claim 1, LIN discloses an method, comprising:
determining, based on a phase and a magnitude of complex samples of a radar receive signal (a subject's vital sign information can be estimated by analyzing the baseband signal B(t), which is representative of the received signal 115 [0047-0048]), an undesired high-amplitude signal component of the radar receive signal representing an interfering motion of a target (by detecting respiration peaks and conducting polynomial fit according to the peaks' locations, the respiration signal (which can include its harmonic components) can be filtered out from the radar baseband signal and achieve real time heartbeat pulses extraction [0039]) in a field of view of a radar sensor (a Doppler radar system 103 sends a transmitting signal 106 toward the human subject 109 [0040])
determining a residual signal based on the undesired high-amplitude signal component and the radar receive signal (the located respiration peaks can then be used to separate the baseband signal B(t) into segments (segmentation 312) for polynomial fitting and subtraction 315 [0050])
and determining a desired low-amplitude signal component of the radar receive signal representing at least one of a target motion or an electromagnetic field of the target based on the residual signal (after the subtraction of the respiration signal at 315, the remaining signal, which contains the heartbeat pulses, can be passed through another band pass filter 318 (e.g., a 3.5-10 Hz passband) to enhance the signal noise ratio of the heartbeat [0050]); (the heartbeat signal level is low and the heartbeat pulses are not obvious in the remaining band passed signal [0054]). It is further noted that the limitation “at least one of a target motion or an electromagnetic field of the target” is in alternative form. Therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight. In this case, the claimed “a target motion” corresponds to the heartbeat pulses as disclosed in LIN.
Regarding claim 2, LIN discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the interfering motion is a breathing motion of the target (one challenge in vital sign sensing is the estimation of a subject's heart rate from the reflected radar signals. While measuring from the front side of a person, the reflected radar signal can be dominated by respiration movements [0037]); (respiration peaks [0039], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, LIN discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one of the target motion or the electromagnetic field indicates a heart beat of the target (the respiration signal (which can include its harmonic components) can be filtered out from the radar baseband signal and achieve real time heartbeat pulses extraction [0039], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); (the signal representative of the received radar signa R(t)I can then be processed to extract information regarding one or more vibrations, e.g., the vibrations of respiration and/or heartbeat [0046]).
Regarding claim 4, LIN discloses the method of claim 3, further comprising determining at least one of a heart rate or a blood pressure of the target based on the desired low-amplitude signal component (the extracted respiration and heartbeat peaks are sent from the Tompkins peak detection blocks (block A and block B) 303 and 306 to the sequential block for respiration and heart rates estimation 321 [0051]). It is further noted that the limitation “at least one of a heart rate or a blood pressure of the target” is in alternative form. Therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight. In this case, the claimed “a heart rate” corresponds to the heart rates estimation as disclosed in LIN.
Regarding claim 5, LIN discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the undesired high-amplitude signal component comprises determining a phase and a magnitude of the undesired high-amplitude signal component based on the phase and the magnitude of the complex samples (by combining I(t) and Q(t) signals, the baseband signal B(t), whose phase contains the vital sign information, can be represented [0047]); (a subject's vital sign information can be estimated by analyzing the baseband signal B(t), which is representative of the received signal 115 [0047-0048], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, LIN discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the undesired high-amplitude signal component comprises determining at least a first harmonic of the interfering motion based on the complex samples (by detecting respiration peaks and conducting polynomial fit according to the peaks' locations, the respiration signal (which can include its harmonic components) can be filtered out from the radar baseband signal and achieve real time heartbeat pulses extraction [0039], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1); (by first band pass filtering 309 (e.g., a 0.8-2 Hz passband) the baseband radar signal B(t) to depress the low frequency DC drift and high frequency noise, the signal-to-noise ratio of the respiration harmonics within B(t) can be enhanced, which can improve respiration peaks detection [0050]).
Regarding claim 13, LIN discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining an absolute value or a square of an absolute value of the residual signal (the signal remaining after the derivative operation 203 can then be operated on to take an absolute value or square, cube, or raise the signal by a larger exponent, or other operation, to enhance the difference between positive absolute values and zero [0054]); and determining the desired low-amplitude signal component based on the absolute value or the square of the absolute value of the residual signal (FIG. 5B shows the result of an embodiment after a derivative operation 203 and a squaring operation 206 is applied. The remaining signal after the squaring operation 206, or other operation, can then be processed to extract the heartbeat pulses, or the time interval between adjacent heartbeat pulses [0055]).
Regarding claim 14, LIN discloses an apparatus comprising a processor, and a memory with instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor (the computing device 2403 includes at least one processor circuit, for example, having a processor 2409 and a memory 2412 [0090]), enable the apparatus to perform the steps of:
determining, based on a phase and a magnitude of complex samples of a radar receive signal (a subject's vital sign information can be estimated by analyzing the baseband signal B(t), which is representative of the received signal 115 [0047-0048]), an undesired high-amplitude signal component of the radar receive signal representing an interfering motion of a target (by detecting respiration peaks and conducting polynomial fit according to the peaks' locations, the respiration signal (which can include its harmonic components) can be filtered out from the radar baseband signal and achieve real time heartbeat pulses extraction [0039]) in a field of view of a radar sensor (a Doppler radar system 103 sends a transmitting signal 106 toward the human subject 109 [0040])
determining a residual signal based on the undesired high-amplitude signal component and the radar receive signal (the located respiration peaks can then be used to separate the baseband signal B(t) into segments (segmentation 312) for polynomial fitting and subtraction 315 [0050])
and determining a desired low-amplitude signal component of the radar receive signal representing at least one of a target motion or an electromagnetic field of the target based on the residual signal (after the subtraction of the respiration signal at 315, the remaining signal, which contains the heartbeat pulses, can be passed through another band pass filter 318 (e.g., a 3.5-10 Hz passband) to enhance the signal noise ratio of the heartbeat [0050]); (the heartbeat signal level is low and the heartbeat pulses are not obvious in the remaining band passed signal [0054]). It is further noted that the limitation “at least one of a target motion or an electromagnetic field of the target” is in alternative form. Therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight. In this case, the claimed “a target motion” corresponds to the heartbeat pulses as disclosed in LIN.
Regarding claim 15, LIN discloses the apparatus of claim 14, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further enable the apparatus to perform the step of: determining at least one of a heart rate or a blood pressure of the target based on the desired low-amplitude signal component (the extracted respiration and heartbeat peaks are sent from the Tompkins peak detection blocks (block A and block B) 303 and 306 to the sequential block for respiration and heart rates estimation 321 [0051]). It is further noted that the limitation “at least one of a heart rate or a blood pressure of the target” is in alternative form. Therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight. In this case, the claimed “a heart rate” corresponds to the heart rates estimation as disclosed in LIN.
Regarding claim 16, LIN discloses the apparatus of claim 14, wherein determining the undesired high-amplitude signal component comprises determining a phase and a magnitude of the undesired high-amplitude signal component based on the phase and the magnitude of the complex samples (by combining I(t) and Q(t) signals, the baseband signal B(t), whose phase contains the vital sign information, can be represented [0047]); (a subject's vital sign information can be estimated by analyzing the baseband signal B(t), which is representative of the received signal 115 [0047-0048], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14).
Regarding claim 17, LIN discloses the apparatus of claim 14, wherein determining the undesired high-amplitude signal component comprises determining at least a first harmonic of the interfering motion based on the complex samples (by detecting respiration peaks and conducting polynomial fit according to the peaks' locations, the respiration signal (which can include its harmonic components) can be filtered out from the radar baseband signal and achieve real time heartbeat pulses extraction [0039], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14); (by first band pass filtering 309 (e.g., a 0.8-2 Hz passband) the baseband radar signal B(t) to depress the low frequency DC drift and high frequency noise, the signal-to-noise ratio of the respiration harmonics within B(t) can be enhanced, which can improve respiration peaks detection [0050]).
Regarding claim 19, LIN discloses a radar system, comprising: the apparatus of claim 14 (Examiner’s note: see rejection of claim 14); and the radar sensor, wherein the radar sensor is configured to generate the radar receive signal by emitting a radar emit signal to the field of view of the radar sensor (a Doppler radar system 103 sends a transmitting signal 106 toward the human subject 109 [0040], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14) and receiving a reflection of the radar emit signal (the transmitted signal 106 (e.g., at 5.8 GHz) hits the front chest of the subject 109 and is reflected back to the sensor 112 (e.g., an antenna) of the radar system 103 [0041]).
Regarding claim 20, LIN discloses an apparatus comprising processing circuitry (the computing device 2403 includes at least one processor circuit, for example, having a processor 2409 and a memory 2412 [0090]) configured to:
determine, based on a phase and a magnitude of complex samples of a radar receive signal (a subject's vital sign information can be estimated by analyzing the baseband signal B(t), which is representative of the received signal 115 [0047-0048]), an undesired high-amplitude signal component of the radar receive signal representing an interfering motion of a target (by detecting respiration peaks and conducting polynomial fit according to the peaks' locations, the respiration signal (which can include its harmonic components) can be filtered out from the radar baseband signal and achieve real time heartbeat pulses extraction [0039]) in a field of view of a radar sensor (a Doppler radar system 103 sends a transmitting signal 106 toward the human subject 109 [0040])
determine a residual signal based on the undesired high-amplitude signal component and the radar receive signal (the located respiration peaks can then be used to separate the baseband signal B(t) into segments (segmentation 312) for polynomial fitting and subtraction 315 [0050])
and determine a desired low-amplitude signal component of the radar receive signal representing at least one of a target motion or an electromagnetic field of the target based on the residual signal (after the subtraction of the respiration signal at 315, the remaining signal, which contains the heartbeat pulses, can be passed through another band pass filter 318 (e.g., a 3.5-10 Hz passband) to enhance the signal noise ratio of the heartbeat [0050]); (the heartbeat signal level is low and the heartbeat pulses are not obvious in the remaining band passed signal [0054]). It is further noted that the limitation “at least one of a target motion or an electromagnetic field of the target” is in alternative form. Therefore, only one alternative was given patentable weight. In this case, the claimed “a target motion” corresponds to the heartbeat pulses as disclosed in LIN.
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.
Claim(s) 7-10, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIN, in view of Droitcour et al. (US 2010/0152600 A1 “DROITCOUR”).
Regarding claim 7, LIN discloses (Examiner’s note: What LIN does not disclose is ) the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, DROITCOUR relates to a radar-based physiological motion sensor. Specifically, DROITCOUR teaches that a model can include such factors as carrier frequency, relative signal reflection, relative angle of arrival, relative path distance difference, source objects' movement in terms of displacement, phase difference, frequency of respirations, and respiratory pattern. In some embodiments, the model can be able to distinguish different patterns such as a sinusoidal pattern, a square-wave like pattern, a pulse train pattern, a triangle-wave like pattern, a saw-tooth like wave pattern, or a rectified sinusoidal wave pattern. In some embodiments, a representative equation of the model is compared and fitted against the signal in the I/Q plot and used to describe the movement of the objects. In some embodiments, if the signal matches a model of non-paradoxical breathing most closely, non-paradoxical breathing is indicated, and if the signal matches a model of paradoxical breathing most closely, paradoxical breathing is indicated [0450].
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 system of LIN to include the teachings of DROITCOUR, because doing so would improve detection accuracy and enable classification of target motions, as recognized by DROITCOUR. In addition, both of the prior art references, LIN and DROITCOUR, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, physiological motion extraction using radar-based method.
Regarding claim 8, LIN, as modified, discloses the method of claim 7,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, DROITCOUR teaches that the respiratory rate is calculated from the sinusoid calculation by fitting a sinusoidal equation to each respiratory cycle, multiple cycles, or cycles over a period of time at least as long as the longest expected respiration period, using least mean square methods or maximum likelihood estimator methods [0354].
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 system of LIN to include the teachings of DROITCOUR, because doing so would improve detection accuracy and enable classification of target motions, as recognized by DROITCOUR.
Regarding claim 9, LIN discloses the method of claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, DROITCOUR teaches that a model can include such factors as carrier frequency, relative signal reflection, relative angle of arrival, relative path distance difference, source objects' movement in terms of displacement, phase difference, frequency of respirations, and respiratory pattern. In some embodiments, the model can be able to distinguish different patterns such as a sinusoidal pattern, a square-wave like pattern, a pulse train pattern, a triangle-wave like pattern, a saw-tooth like wave pattern, or a rectified sinusoidal wave pattern. In some embodiments, a representative equation of the model is compared and fitted against the signal in the I/Q plot and used to describe the movement of the objects. In some embodiments, if the signal matches a model of non-paradoxical breathing most closely, non-paradoxical breathing is indicated, and if the signal matches a model of paradoxical breathing most closely, paradoxical breathing is indicated [0450].
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 system of LIN to include the teachings of DROITCOUR, because doing so would improve detection accuracy and enable classification of target motions, as recognized by DROITCOUR.
Regarding claim 10, LIN, as modified, discloses the method of claim 9,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, DROITCOUR teaches that the irregular breathing can have some periodic pattern that can be found and displayed using wavelets or analysis of the repetition of rate and amplitude of a sequence of sections. In some embodiments, common patterns can be recognizable and comparable to certain pulmonary conditions. In some embodiments, the wavelet power spectrum of certain pulmonary conditions can produce a pattern of frequency and power over time. This pattern can be cross correlated to a wavelet power spectrum of a patient with irregular breathing. In some embodiments, the patient's pattern can be matched with a pattern from a library of patterns, indicating particular pulmonary conditions to indicate the presence of that particular pulmonary condition [0367].
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 system of LIN to include the teachings of DROITCOUR, because doing so would improve detection accuracy and enable classification of target motions, as recognized by DROITCOUR.
Regarding claim 12, LIN/ DROITCOUR discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising determining the plurality of atoms based on respective parameters for an inhale phase and an exhale phase of a breathing motion (the irregular breathing can have some periodic pattern that can be found and displayed using wavelets or analysis of the repetition of rate and amplitude of a sequence of sections. In some embodiments, common patterns can be recognizable and comparable to certain pulmonary conditions. In some embodiments, the wavelet power spectrum of certain pulmonary conditions can produce a pattern of frequency and power over time. This pattern can be cross correlated to a wavelet power spectrum of a patient with irregular breathing. In some embodiments, the patient's pattern can be matched with a pattern from a library of patterns, indicating particular pulmonary conditions to indicate the presence of that particular pulmonary condition [DROITCOUR 0367], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10).
Regarding claim 18, LIN discloses the apparatus of claim 14,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, DROITCOUR teaches that a model can include such factors as carrier frequency, relative signal reflection, relative angle of arrival, relative path distance difference, source objects' movement in terms of displacement, phase difference, frequency of respirations, and respiratory pattern. In some embodiments, the model can be able to distinguish different patterns such as a sinusoidal pattern, a square-wave like pattern, a pulse train pattern, a triangle-wave like pattern, a saw-tooth like wave pattern, or a rectified sinusoidal wave pattern. In some embodiments, a representative equation of the model is compared and fitted against the signal in the I/Q plot and used to describe the movement of the objects. In some embodiments, if the signal matches a model of non-paradoxical breathing most closely, non-paradoxical breathing is indicated, and if the signal matches a model of paradoxical breathing most closely, paradoxical breathing is indicated [0450].
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 system of LIN to include the teachings of DROITCOUR, because doing so would improve detection accuracy and enable classification of target motions, as recognized by DROITCOUR.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIN, in view of DROITCOUR, and further in view of Sana et al. (US 2015/0112220 A1 “SANA”).
Regarding claim 11, LIN/ DROITCOUR discloses the method of claim 10,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, SANA relates to a system for and a method of wirelessly monitoring one or more patients. Specifically, SANA teaches that sparsity implies that the vector to be estimated can be expected to have only a few non-zero elements. After the removal of the multipath effects, the remaining impulse response, hc(t), is a sparse vector with the locations of nonzero elements dependent on the current location of the chest. Several greedy algorithms have been developed for sparse signal estimation. Algorithms like orthogonal matching pursuit (OMP) can operate based only on the sparsity information without considering any signal or noise characteristics. Other algorithms, like fast Bayesian matching pursuit (FBMP) and SABMP, can use Bayesian statistics of the signal and noise, along with sparsity rate, to compute the sparse vector estimate [0070].
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 system of LIN to include the teachings of SANA, because doing so would effectively and accurately determine target motions, as recognized by SANA. In addition, both of the prior art references, LIN and SANA, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, non-invasive non-contact techniques for monitoring of physiological movements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adib et al. (US 2017/0042432 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of mechanisms for separating different sources of motion in an environment.
Lin et al. (US 2010/0198083 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure of a method and system for cancelling body movement effect for non-contact vital sign detection. The first baseband complex signal is mathematically combined with the second baseband complex signal to cancel out a Doppler frequency drift therebetween to yield a periodic Doppler phase effect.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, WILLIAM J KELLEHER can be reached at (571) 272-7753. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 February 20, 2026