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 .
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.
Claim 10 recite(s):
configuring, by one or more processors of a system, multiple threshold checkers for a first threshold distance associated with locking the system and a second threshold distance associated with waking up the system;
collecting, by a range sensor, measurement data;
examining, by the range sensor, the measurement data based on the multiple threshold checkers to determine satisfaction of a first trigger condition that a first distance of the measurement data is greater than the first threshold distance;
in response to the satisfaction of the first trigger condition, providing, by the range sensor, the measurement data for the one or more processors to perform presence analysis;
collecting, by the range sensor, second measurement data; examining, by the range sensor, the second measurement data based on the multiple threshold checkers to determine satisfaction of a second trigger condition that a second distance of the second measurement data is less than the second threshold distance; and
in response to the satisfaction of the second trigger condition, providing, by the range sensor, the second measurement data for the one or more processors to perform the presence analysis.
Independent claims 1 and 19 recite corresponding functions, attributable to a processor and/or range sensor accordingly. It is noted that per the specification, all of the operations can be implemented to run on the range sensor (i.e. a processor thereof; [0165]).
Analysis
Step 2A, Prong One
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
Claim 10 recites: “configuring.. multiple threshold checkers for a first threshold distance associated with locking the system and a second threshold distance associated with waking up the system”;
“examining… the measurement data based on the multiple threshold checkers to determine satisfaction of a first trigger condition that a first distance of the measurement data is greater than the first threshold distance”;
“examining…the second measurement data based on the multiple threshold checkers to determine satisfaction of a second trigger condition that a second distance of the second measurement data is less than the second threshold distance”
Claims 1 and 19 recite equivalent operations of the processor/range sensor.
These encompass mental observations or evaluations, performable by a human in the mind or via pen and paper. It is noted “threshold checkers” are not interpreted as a structural element. The specification indicates a “threshold checker” may for example include a “data type” and “range”. Establishing these “checkers” is interpreted as setting desired thresholds.
Thus, the claims recite mental processes, which are recognized abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong Two
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 10 recites additional elements of
“collecting, by a range sensor, measurement data;”
“collecting, by the range sensor, second measurement data;” and
“in response to the satisfaction of the first trigger condition, providing, by the range sensor, the measurement data for the one or more processors to perform presence analysis. ”
and
“in response to the satisfaction of the second trigger condition, providing, by the range sensor, the second measurement data for the one or more processors to perform the presence analysis. ”
Claims 1 and 19 require a generic “range sensor” for performance thereof accordingly.
The collecting steps are recited at a high level of generality and amount to mere data gathering. It is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception to perform the examination of data. The step represents insignificant extra-solution activity and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
Similarly, the “providing” steps add insignificant post-solution activity in the form of data output. Further, as indicated above, this data may be “provided” by the range sensor to itself, as the one or more processors may be those of the range sensor.
Concerning the broadly referenced “range sensor” hardware specifically, to the extent that any structural sensing hardware is interpreted as being required beyond a processor itself, use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05 (b), III).
Claims 1, 10, and 19 require additional elements of “one or more processors” in addition to the implied processor of the range sensor (which itself may represent the “one or more processors”). These processors perform the configuring of threshold checkers and examining and providing of data.
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Here, there are no details about how the steps to configure, examine, and provide are performed. The processor(s) generally apply the abstract idea (i.e., perform the mental process) without placing any limitation on how the processor operates. The claim invokes generic computer elements as a tool for performing the recited idea rather than providing an improvement to the computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the limitations represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer and does not integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B:
A conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05, subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the re-evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration takes into account whether or not the extra-solution activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Here, the steps of collecting and providing measurement data by range sensors are mere data gathering and outputting steps that are recited at a high level of generality, and as shown in the disclosure, is well-understood (e.g. [0003]-[0007]). Therefore, these limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration and do not amount to significantly more.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the processors were found to represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer using generic computer components. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B.
Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra-solution activity, and therefore the claimed invention of claims 1, 10, and 19 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Concerning claims 2-4, 9, 11-13, 18 and 20, the claims relate to “setting” a presence status and confidence level which includes abstract mental evaluations and do not introduce any additional elements.
Claims 5-6, 8, 14-15, and 17 require the range sensor be in “tracking mode” “breathing mode” or “autonomous mode” for certain time periods. However these “modes” are broadly referenced and do not impose any particular limitation on the range sensor. They are not found to introduce any additional elements.
Claims 7 and 16 require breathing pattern detection performed by the one or more processors. Such detection includes abstract mental evaluations and do not introduce any additional elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 10, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barlow et al. (US 2013/0214166).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 19, Barlow discloses a system/apparatus and corresponding method, the system comprising: a memory (506); one or more processors coupled to the memory (502), the one or more processors configured to perform operations, the operations comprising: configuring multiple threshold checkers ([0047]) for a first threshold distance associated with locking the system (195) and a second threshold distance associated with waking up the system (185); and a built-in range sensor (100), the range sensor configured to: collect measurement data ([0044]); examine the measurement data based on the multiple threshold checkers to determine satisfaction of a first trigger condition that a first distance of the measurement data is greater than the first threshold distance ([0045]); in response to the satisfaction of the first trigger condition: provide the measurement data for the one or more processors to perform presence analysis ([0040]); collect second measurement data ([0044]); examine the second measurement data based on the multiple threshold checkers to determine satisfaction of a second trigger condition that a second distance of the second measurement data is less than the second threshold distance ([0045]); and in response to the satisfaction of the second trigger condition: provide the second measurement data for the one or more processors to perform the presence analysis ([0039]). Note also [0063]-[0070].
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.
Claim(s) 2-5, 8-9, 11-14, 17-18, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barlow as applied to claims 1, 10, and 19 above, and further in view of Partiwala et al. (WO 2020/117189).
Regarding claims 2-5, 11-14, and 20, Barlow discloses receiving measurement data provided by the sensor, and after a first timeout duration, setting a presence status to indicate user-not-present ([0040]). Barlow does not discuss a confidence level and does not disclose setting a confidence level to partial and full after first and second timeout durations. Partiwala discloses a similar system and method where a time of flight sensor is used to determine user presence, and discloses setting a confidence level to a partial level after a first timeout duration and to 100% after a second timeout while remaining in a tracking mode to detect user presence ([0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to modify the system and method of Barlow to adopt partial and full confidence levels of user absence in order to allow for a less aggressive step of lowering brightness before fully powering off as described by Partiwala for situations where the user is very briefly out of range out of range (Partiwala [0053]).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Barlow discloses when in the first or “off” state, which corresponds to after the second timeout duration as modified by Partiwala, the range sensor changes to be an in “autonomous mode”, i.e. be activated by a detected object within a certain range ([0005]). It is noted that the claims impose no limitation on what is required in the “autonomous mode”.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, Barlow discloses setting the presence status to indicate user-present upon receipt of second measurement data which indicates the presence of a user ([0045]).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barlow as applied to claims 4 and 13 above, and further in view of Lemarchand (US 2018/0157376).
Barlow does not disclose the range sensor is in a breathing mode for breathing pattern detection during the timeout durations and that breathing pattern detection is performed by one or more processors or by the range sensor.
Lemarchand discloses a similar system and method where a distance sensor is used to determine user presence including breathing pattern detection ([0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to further modify the system and method of Barlow to include breathing pattern detection throughout the presence detecting process in order to discriminate between a stationary inanimate object and a dormant animate object (user) as specified by Lemarchand.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached on a part time schedule, typically M-Fri 8:00 AM-4:30 PM Eastern Time, but having off alternating Monday-Tuesdays and Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights