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 regarding the instant amendment have been considered and persuasive regarding the applied combination of prior art; however, a new ground of rejection is applied. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in light of the current 35 USC 101 rejection, infra analysis. The particular improvements specifically described in Applicant’s specification are generally described in the claim language and taught by the applied prior art. The functioning of the radar itself is not improved due to applying chirps in a controlled manner opposed to “creating simulated continuous sparse sampled chirp radar data” as described. The specification, 0066, discussed “preferable techniques” for static monitoring or movement detection. The improvement to the display functionality, namely brightness control, would be realized if tied to the use of radar for either static or continuous movement detection in light of the particular chirp teachings in the specification. This improvement to how the display operates would represent a practical application.
35 USC 101
*It is recommended to replace “adjusting” with the equivalent of “controlling” because “adjusting” represents a parameter modification opposed to a controlled brightness. The controlled application of the determination limitation represents a practical application while receiving radar data, analyzing radar chirps, and determining distance a mental process.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process directed to determining that a distance has changed, claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 11, 16-17, and 19, and the less than and greater than determinations for brightness adjustment, claims 2-5 and 12-15, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). In particular, determining, based on the radar data, that a distance between a person and the computing device computing device has changed from a first distance to a second distance, represents a mental process in addition to mathematical concepts comprising wherein determining the distance comprises averaging the radar data from the burst mode;
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations comprising a display, sensor, and radar generally link the abstract idea to the field of thermostats, MPEP 2106.05(h); the measuring and receiving represent tangential data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g); and the “adjusting, based on an ambient level, a display brightness” . represents insignificant extra-solution activity because the adjustment represents a configuration change opposed to an actual, controlled adjustment of the display brightness, MPEP 2106.05(f) . additionally, the limitations of receiving, from the radar sensor, radar data, wherein receiving the radar data comprises operating the radar sensor in a burst mode, by outputting frames of multiple chirps separated by an amount of time until a subsequent frame wherein determining the distance comprises averaging the radar data from the burst mode, see insignificant data gathering, MPEP 2106.05(g)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor and medium represent mere instructions to apply the abstract idea while the insignificant extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional, MPEP 2106.05(d).
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, 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (PG/PUB 20220390134) in view over Shin et al. (PG/PUB 20230329574).
Claim 1.
Chung teaches a computing device (ABSTRACT) comprising:
a display (0003,0062, claim 1)
an ambient light sensor (0004, 0034, 0062)
a radar sensor (0064)
a processing system comprising one or more processors (0003, 0071)
at least one computer-readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by the processing system (0071, 0131), cause the computing device to perform operations comprising:
measuring, using the ambient light sensor, an ambient light level of an environment surrounding the computing device (0004 0024, 0034, 0064, 0067-68, 0085, 0095 e.g. see adjusting display brightness based on ambient lighting )
receive, from the radar sensor, radar data (0004, 0024-26, 0064, 0099-0100 e.g. see use of radar for occupant sensing and distance determination)
determining, based on the radar data, that a distance between a person and the computing device has changed from a first distance to a second distance (0099-0100, 0126 e.g., see adjusting brightness based on distance and ambient lighting)
in response to determining that the distance between the person and the computing device has changed from the first distance to the second distance, adjusting, based on the ambient light level, a display brightness of the display (0004, 0097 e.g., see adjusting brightness based on distance and ambient lighting)
Chung does not expressly teach the radar limitations described below (E.g. burst, chirp, and averaging). Shin teaches the radar limitations described below
wherein receiving the radar data comprises operating the radar sensor in a burst mode, by outputting frames of multiple chirps separated by an amount of time until a subsequent frame (Shin et al., claim 1 e.g. “a radar sensor, housed by the housing, configured to operate in a burst mode in which the radar sensor transmits a plurality of bursts of radar chirps, receives reflections of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps, and outputs a single radar data stream based on the reflections of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps, wherein:,” 0003-0004, Chang, 0098-0100, 0108
determining, based on the radar data, that a distance between a person and the computing device computing device has changed from a first distance to a second distance (Shin et al., 0036, 0046 e.g. “The radar data stream output by radar subsystem 120 may be output to human interaction engine 245 in addition to radar processing module 112. Human interaction engine 245 may use the radar data stream to determine if a human interaction, such as a human moving within a defined distance of device 101 or a gesture has been performed. Further detail regarding how radar subsystem 120, radar processing module 112, and human interaction engine 245 function and interact is detailed in relation to FIGS. 2A and 2B.”, see also Chang, 0098-0100, 0108
wherein determining the distance comprises averaging the radar data from the burst mode (Shin et al., As part of conversion 610-1, an averaging or combining process may be performed. Generally, each of the chirps of burst 510-1 (chirp 511-1 through chirp 511-5) may be averaged together. To accomplish this averaging: the sample for each chirp of burst 510-1 taken at chirp sampling point 605-1 may be averaged together; the sample for each chirp of burst 510-1 taken at chirp sampling point 605-2 may be averaged together; the sample for each chirp of burst 510-1 taken at chirp sampling point 605-3 may be averaged together; the sample for each chirp of burst 510-1 taken at chirp sampling point 605-4 may be averaged together; the sample for each chirp of burst 510-1 taken at chirp sampling point 605-5 may be averaged together; the sample for each chirp of burst 510-1 taken at chirp sampling point 605-6 may be averaged together; and the sample for each chirp of burst 510-1 taken at chirp sampling point 605-7 may be averaged together. Stated more generally, each sample of a chirp is averaged with a corresponding sample of each other chirp of the burst. For example, the third sample of a chirp is averaged with the third samples of each other chirp of the burst.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Shin, namely determining object distance and associated object information based in part on applying multiple chirps in a burst mode and associated averaging, to the teachings of Chung, namely applying radar chirps in burst mode to determine object location changes and/speed, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods. Shin is in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to a problem of distance determination, as described, ABSTRACT, Figure 5, 0022-23 (e.g. human relative motion between first and second states is determine/interaction motion)
Claim 7.
The computing device of claim 1, the operations further comprising:
in response to determining that the distance between the person and the computing device has changed from the first distance to the second distance, changing content that is displayed on the display from first content to second content that is different from the first content (Chung, 0095-96)
Claim 8. The computing device of claim 7, wherein the first content includes an ambient temperature of the environment surrounding the computing device and the second content includes the ambient temperature and a temperature set point of an air handling system in communication with the computing device (0096)
Claim 11.
Chung teaches a method for controlling a display of a computing device , the method comprising:
measuring, using an ambient light sensor of the computing device , an ambient light level of an environment surrounding the computing device ; supra claim 1
receiving, from a radar sensor of the computing device , radar data; supra claim 1
determining, based on the radar data, that a distance between a person and the computing device has changed from a first distance to a second distance; supra claim 1and
in response to determining that the distance between the person and the computing device has changed from the first distance to the second distance, adjusting, based on the ambient light level, a display brightness of the display, supra claim 1
Chin does not expressly teach the radar limitations described below (E.g. burst, chirp, and averaging). Shin teaches the radar limitations described below
wherein receiving the radar data comprises operating the radar sensor in a burst mode, by outputting frames of multiple chirps separated by an amount of time until a subsequent frame (Shin et al., claim 1 e.g. “a radar sensor, housed by the housing, configured to operate in a burst mode in which the radar sensor transmits a plurality of bursts of radar chirps, receives reflections of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps, and outputs a single radar data stream based on the reflections of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps, wherein:,” 0003-0004, Cheng, see also Chang, 0098-0100, 0108
determining, based on the radar data, that a distance between a person and the computing device computing device has changed from a first distance to a second distance (Shin et al., 0036, 0046 e.g. “The radar data stream output by radar subsystem 120 may be output to human interaction engine 245 in addition to radar processing module 112. Human interaction engine 245 may use the radar data stream to determine if a human interaction, such as a human moving within a defined distance of device 101 or a gesture has been performed. Further detail regarding how radar subsystem 120, radar processing module 112, and human interaction engine 245 function and interact is detailed in relation to FIGS. 2A and 2B.”, see also Chang, 0098-0100, 0108
wherein determining the distance comprises averaging the radar data from the burst mode (Shin et al., As part of conversion 610-1, an averaging or combining process may be performed. Generally, each of the chirps of burst 510-1 (chirp 511-1 through chirp 511-5) may be averaged together. To accomplish this averaging: the sample for each chirp of burst 510-1 taken at chirp sampling point 605-1 may be averaged together; the sample for each chirp of burst 510-1 taken at chirp sampling point 605-2 may be averaged together; the sample for each chirp of burst 510-1 taken at chirp sampling point 605-3 may be averaged together; the sample for each chirp of burst 510-1 taken at chirp sampling point 605-4 may be averaged together; the sample for each chirp of burst 510-1 taken at chirp sampling point 605-5 may be averaged together; the sample for each chirp of burst 510-1 taken at chirp sampling point 605-6 may be averaged together; and the sample for each chirp of burst 510-1 taken at chirp sampling point 605-7 may be averaged together. Stated more generally, each sample of a chirp is averaged with a corresponding sample of each other chirp of the burst. For example, the third sample of a chirp is averaged with the third samples of each other chirp of the burst.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Shin, namely determining object distance and associated object information based in part on applying multiple chirps in a burst mode and associated averaging, to the teachings of Chung, namely applying radar chirps in burst mode to determine object location changes and/speed, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods. Shin is in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to a problem of distance determination, as described, ABSTRACT, Figure 5, 0022-23 (e.g. human relative motion between first and second states is determine/interaction motion)
Claim 17. The method of claim 11, further comprising:
in response to determining that the distance between the person and the computing device has changed from the first distance to the second distance, changing content that is displayed on the display from first content to second content that is different from the first content, supra claim 7
Claim 18. The method of claim 17, wherein the first content includes an ambient temperature of the environment surrounding the computing device and the second content includes the ambient temperature and a temperature set point of an air handling system in communication with the computing device , supra claim 8
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) 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (PG/PUB 20220390134) in view over Chakravarthula et al. (PG/PUB 20130057573) in view over Kakapuri (PG/PUB 20170045936).
Claim 2.
The computing device of claim 1 but does not expressly teach the light levels and distance thresholds for increasing brightness. Chakravarthula et al. teaches the ambient levels and Kakapuri teaches the distance limitations described below
wherein the ambient light level is less than a predetermined threshold (0077 e.g. increase brightness when dark), wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance (Kakapuri, 0020), and wherein adjusting the display brightness comprises increasing a brightness level of the display (Chakravarthula et al., 0077, Kakapuri, 0020)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Chakravarthula et al., namely increasing display brightness based on low ambient levels, to the teachings of Ching, namely adjusting display brightness based on distance and ambient lighting, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods.
The combination does not expressly teach the distance limitations described above. Kakapuri teaches the distance limitations described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Chung, as modified, namely adjusting display brightness based on distance and ambient lighting, to the teachings of Kakapuri, namely increasing display brightness when the first distance is greater than the second distance, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods.
Claim 12
The applied prior art teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the ambient light level is less than a predetermined threshold, wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance, and wherein adjusting the display brightness comprises increasing a brightness level of the display, supra claim 2
Claim(s) 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (PG/PUB 20220390134) in view over Nishio et al. (PG/PUB 20240296814) in view over ZUO (PG/PUB 20200227004).
Claim 3.
The computing device of claim 1 but does not teach the ambient level and distance limitations described below. Nishio teaches the ambient limitations and ZUO teaches the distance limitations described below
wherein the ambient light level is less than a predetermined threshold, wherein the first distance is less than the second distance, and wherein adjusting the display brightness comprises decreasing a brightness level of the display (Nishio, see decreasing display brightness when ambient light is below a threshold, Figure 4A, 0048, 0055, see ZUO, 0013)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Nishio, namely decreasing display brightness based on low ambient levels, to the teachings of Chung, namely adjusting display brightness based on distance and ambient lighting, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Chung, as modified, to the teachings of ZUO, namely decreasing display brightness when the first distance is less than the second distance, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods.
Claim 13. The applied prior art teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the ambient light level is less than a predetermined threshold, wherein the first distance is less than the second distance, and wherein adjusting the display brightness comprises decreasing a brightness level of the display, supra claim 3.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (PG/PUB 20220390134) in view over Shiozaki (PG/PUB 20160195916) in view over Imana (PG/PUB 20160004345)
Claim 4.
The computing device of claim 1 but does not expressly teach the light level and distance limitations described below. Shiozaki teaches the distance limitations and Nishio teaches the light level limitations described below
wherein the ambient light level is greater than a predetermined threshold, wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance, and wherein adjusting the display brightness comprises decreasing a brightness level of the display (Shiozaki, 0012 e.g. see decreasing brightness/turned based greater distance, and see Imana for decreasing brightness when ambient lighting is above a threshold, claim 19)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Shiozaki, namely decreasing display brightness based a first distance being greater than a second distance, to the teachings of Chung, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Chung, as modified, to the teachings of Imana, namely decreasing display brightness when ambient lighting exceeds a threshold, would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods.
Claim 14. The applied prior art teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the ambient light level is greater than a predetermined threshold, wherein the first distance is greater than the second distance, and wherein adjusting the display brightness comprises decreasing a brightness level of the display, supra claim 4.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (PG/PUB 20220390134) in view over Nishio (PG/PUB 20240296814).
Claim 5.
The computing device of claim 1 but does not expressly teach the lighting and distance limitations described below. Nishio teaches the lighting and distance limitations described below.
wherein the ambient light level is greater than a predetermined threshold, wherein the first distance is less than the second distance, and wherein adjusting the display brightness comprises increasing a brightness level of the display (Nishio, see user proximity to display device as in sitting close as a first distance less than a second distance, 0051, and see increasing brightness when bright outside, 0053,
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Nishio, namely increasing display brightness based a first distance being less than a second distance, , would achieve an expected and predictable result via combining said elements using known methods
Claim 15. The applied prior art teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the ambient light level is greater than a predetermined threshold, wherein the first distance is less than the second distance, and wherein adjusting the display brightness comprises increasing a brightness level of the display, supra claim 5.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (PG/PUB 20220390134) in view over Bieg (PG/PUB 2017032201).
Claim 6.
The computing device of claim 1 but does not expressly teach the head limitations described below. Bieg teaches the head limitations described below,
the operations further comprising:
prior to determining that the distance between the person and the computing device has changed from the first distance to the second distance (Chung, 0099 -0100 e.g. see first determining speed for determining change in positions/directions)
determining, based on the radar data, that at least one of a moving velocity of the person has changed from a first velocity to a second velocity and a head position of the person has changed from a first position to a second position (Chung, 0099-0100, see Bieg for determining a change in head velocity for determining direction of view)
in response to determining that the moving velocity of the person has changed from the first velocity to the second velocity or that the head position of the person has changed from the first position to the second position, changing a mode of the display from a standby mode in which first content is displayed at a first brightness level to an active mode in which the first content or second content is displayed at a second brightness level that is greater than the first brightness level (Chung, 0097)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Bieg, namely determining a change in head position of an occupant for determining direction of view, would achieve an expected and predictable result of not only determining occupant is approaching the thermostat but also the direction of view. Bieg is reasonably pertinent to a problem of identifying head position, ABSTRACT, summary of invention.
Claim 16. The applied prior art teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising:
prior to determining that the distance between the person and the computing device has changed from the first distance to the second distance: supra claim 6
determining, based on the radar data, that at least one of a moving velocity of the person has changed from a first velocity to a second velocity and a head position of the person has changed from a first position to a second position; supra claim 6
in response to determining that the moving velocity of the person has changed from the first velocity to the second velocity or that the head position of the person has changed from the first position to the second position, changing a mode of the display from a standby mode in which first content is displayed at a first brightness level to an active mode in which the first content or second content is displayed at a second brightness level that is greater than the first brightness level, supra claim 6
Claims 9-10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung et al. (PG/PUB 20220390134) in view over Goyal (USPN9353965) in view over Nishio (PG/PUB 20240296814).
Claim 9. The computing device of claim 1 but does not expressly teach viewing angle and line to central axis limitations described below. Nishio teaches the viewing angle limitations and Goyal teaches the line to axis limitations descried below, operations further comprising:
determining, based on the radar data, that a viewing angle at which the person is viewing the display has changed from a first viewing angle to a second viewing angle (Nishio 0043 e.g. see viewing angle changes for determining attentive or non-attentive states), wherein the viewing angle corresponds to an angle between a line extending from the person to a central axis of the display and a line that is parallel to a display plane of the display, the display plane being perpendicular to the central axis (Goyal, Figure 15-1520, 1520 e.g. see viewing angle corresponding to line extending to central axis of thermostat)
in response to determining that the viewing angle at which the person is viewing the display has changed from the first viewing angle to the second viewing angle, adjusting a characteristic of content that is displayed on the display (Nishio, 0043-45 e.g. see adapting display based on attentive levels and see Goyal as adapting display based on occupant orientation)
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Nishio, namely determining a change in viewing angle for adjusting a display, to the teachings of Chung et al., adjusting a display on user approach, would achieve an expected and predictable result of not only determining occupant is approaching the thermostat but also the direction of view. Nishio is reasonably pertinent to a problem of identifying head position, ABSTRACT, summary of invention.
The combination does not expressly teach the line to central axis described above but Goyal teaches the line to central axis angle above.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Goyal, namely determining a line from an occupant to a central axis, to the teachings of Chung, as modified, namely determining a user viewing angle relative to a display central axis, would achieve an expected and predictable of determining a user angle of view relative to a line extending to central axis. Goyal is reasonably pertinent to a problem of providing frames of reference, ABSTRACT, summary of invention.
Claim 10. The computing device of claim 9, wherein adjusting the characteristic of the content comprises changing at least one of a display brightness of the content, the content from first content to second content that is different from the first content, and a font feature of the content, Goyal, Col 38 lines 8-67, supra claim 1)
Claim 19. The applied prior art teaches the method of claim 11, further comprising:
determining, based on the radar data, that a viewing angle at which the person is viewing the display has changed from a first viewing angle to a second viewing angle, wherein the viewing angle corresponds to an angle between a line extending from the person to a central axis of the display and a line that is parallel to a display plane of the display, the display plane being perpendicular to the central axis, supra claim 8
in response to determining that the viewing angle at which the person is viewing the display has changed from the first viewing angle to the second viewing angle, adjusting a characteristic of content that is displayed on the display, supra claim 9
Claim 20. The method of claim 19, wherein adjusting the characteristic of the content comprises changing at least one of a display brightness of the content, the content from first content to second content that is different from the first content, and a font feature of the content, supra claim 10
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
11959998 -see detection of living objects, claim 1 relevancy e.g. “The techniques of this disclosure enable frequency-modulated continuous-wave radar-based detection of living objects. Instead of generating a chirp pattern with each chirp separated by an idle period, a radar generates a chirp pattern with multiple chirps separated by an idle period. From applying a Fourier transform to receiver signals for each frame, the radar determines an amplitude as a function of range for each frame. The radar computes the standard deviation between the amplitudes of two frames and then, for each additional frame, the radar incrementally updates the standard deviation to be inclusive of the amplitude contribution of the additional frame. That is, rather than recalculate the standard deviation for each new frame, the radar increments the standard deviation by a fraction of the amplitude for the new frame, which is proportionate to the total quantity of frames generated thus far. In response to the standard deviation satisfying a noise threshold, the radar outputs an indication of a living object.”
20240302519 , claim 1 relevancy for object detection e.g. “In accordance with an embodiment, a method includes determining a covariance of a plurality of chirps measured by a radar sensor; and determining at least one of a motion and a presence of an object within a field of view of the radar sensor based on the determined covariance.”
7415126, claim 1 relevancy for occupant sensing , ABSTRACT, summary of invention
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 DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1645. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat (10-8) PST.
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 Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
