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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-15 filed on 10 DEC 2021 are currently pending and have been examined.
Priority
The pending application 18/661,709, filed on 10 DEC 2021, is a continuation of national stage application filed under 35 U.S.C. 371 of PCT/JP2022/043601, filed on 25 NOV 2025 and claims priority from application JP2021-200762, filed on 10 DEC 2021 in Japan.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 13 MAY 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a sampling frequency setting part in claim 1: support found in ¶ [0019]
a vibration component removing part in claim 3: support found in ¶ [0019]
a vital sign detecting part in claim 4: support found in ¶ [0019]
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghoshal (US 2021/0128068 A1) in view of Riley et al. (US 2013/0328726 A1, cited by applicant in IDS dated 13 MAY 2024).
Regarding claim 1, Ghoshal discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Ghoshal has been struck-through]
A sensor system (Ghoshal heart rate detection system 100, Figs. 1A-1B) comprising:
a radio wave sensor that emits an electromagnetic wave toward a measuring object and receives a reflected wave reflected assuming the electromagnetic wave hits the measuring object (Ghoshal RF sensor 110, Figs. 1A-1B, 3A-3B; "A heart rate detection system is presented which utilizes high frequency radio frequency (RF) signals transmitted to and reflected back from the body of a mammal (e.g., RF signals reflected from the upper torso of a human subject under test where the heart is located)." - ¶ [0004]);
a vibration sensor (Ghoshal gyroscope 114, Figs. 1A-1B) that measures vibration to be superposed on the reflected wave as noise (Ghoshal “The method further includes receiving a motion signal from a gyroscope signal path. The method further includes cancelling a vibration component of the response signal using the motion signal to produce a corrected response signal.” - ¶ [0007]); and
Riley et al. discloses:
A sensor system comprising:
a radio wave sensor (Riley et al. GNSS receiver 170, Fig. 2);
a vibration sensor (Riley et al. “one or more of the accelerometers 140 and/or one or more of the other sensors 150 measure data indicative of motion of the mobile device 100.” - ¶ [0039]) that measures vibration to be superposed on the reflected wave as noise (Riley et al. "The oscillation determination module 306 (e.g., the processor 110 using the software 162) processes the measured sensor data to determine an oscillation rate of the mobile device 100." - ¶ [0040]); and
a sampling frequency setting part (Riley et al. control module 304, Fig. 3) that recognizes a frequency range of the vibration, identifies an upper limit of the frequency of the vibration, determines that a sampling frequency of the electromagnetic wave of the radio wave sensor is a sampling frequency whose Nyquist frequency is equal to an identified upper limit of the frequency and sets the sampling frequency of the electromagnetic wave that the radio wave sensor to a determined sampling frequency (Riley et al. “At stage 418, the process 410 includes, in response to the oscillation rate being undesirable…increasing a present sampling rate of the location signals to satisfy Nyquist criteria for the oscillation rate… The control module 304 monitors the determined oscillation rate and responds to (and is responsive to) the oscillation rate being an undesirable rate, e.g., one that is likely to induce errors in position determinations, by controlling the measuring of the location signals and/or the processing of the measured location signals to help avoid the errors that would likely be induced without such changes in the measuring and/or processing of the location signals.” - ¶ [0041]) Examiner notes that the Nyquist frequency is the maximum measured frequency that can be accurately digitized without aliasing. Therefore, it would be obvious from the teachings of Riley et al. that the upper limit of the oscillation rate, the Nyquist frequency, must be identified in order to increase the sampling rate to satisfy Nyquist criteria for the oscillation rate.).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Riley et al. into the invention of Ghoshal to yield the invention of claim 1 above. Both Ghoshal and Riley et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose measuring vibration signals in order to remove vibrational noise from radio wave measurements. Ghoshal discloses the limitations of claim 1 outlined above. However, Ghoshal fails to explicitly disclose a sampling frequency setting part that recognizes a frequency range of the vibration, identifies an upper limit of the frequency of the vibration, determines that a sampling frequency of the electromagnetic wave that the radio wave sensor emits is a sampling frequency whose Nyquist frequency is equal to an identified upper limit of the frequency, and sets the sampling frequency of the electromagnetic wave that the radio wave sensor emits to a determined sampling frequency. This feature is disclosed by Riley et al. where the oscillation frequency of a mobile device is measured and used to adjust the sampling rate of a GNSS receiver in a mobile device to mitigate undesirable effects. The combination of Ghoshal and Riley et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “mitigate undesired effects of oscillation” and “reduce the possibility of mistaken conclusions by improperly processing data.” (Riley et al. ¶ [0031])
Regarding claim 2, Ghoshal discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Ghoshal has been struck-through]
A radio wave transmitting and receiving method comprising:
a vibration measuring step that emits an electromagnetic wave toward a measuring object from a radio wave sensor (Ghoshal RF sensor 110, Figs. 1A-1B, 3A-3B; "A heart rate detection system is presented which utilizes high frequency radio frequency (RF) signals transmitted to and reflected back from the body of a mammal (e.g., RF signals reflected from the upper torso of a human subject under test where the heart is located)." - ¶ [0004]) and measures vibration to be superposed on the reflected wave reflected assuming the electromagnetic wave hits the measuring object as noise (Ghoshal “The method further includes receiving a motion signal from a gyroscope signal path. The method further includes cancelling a vibration component of the response signal using the motion signal to produce a corrected response signal.” - ¶ [0007]);
Riley et al. discloses:
A radio wave transmitting and receiving method comprising:
a vibration measuring step (Riley et al. “one or more of the accelerometers 140 and/or one or more of the other sensors 150 measure data indicative of motion of the mobile device 100.” - ¶ [0039]) that emits an electromagnetic wave toward a measuring object from a radio wave sensor (Riley et al. GNSS receiver 170, Fig. 2) and measures vibration to be superposed on the reflected wave reflected assuming the electromagnetic wave hits the measuring object as noise (Riley et al. "The oscillation determination module 306 (e.g., the processor 110 using the software 162) processes the measured sensor data to determine an oscillation rate of the mobile device 100." - ¶ [0040]);
a vibration frequency upper limit identifying step that recognizes a frequency range of the vibration and identifies an upper limit of the frequency of the vibration (Riley et al. "The oscillation determination module 306 (e.g., the processor 110 using the software 162) processes the measured sensor data to determine an oscillation rate of the mobile device 100." - ¶ [0040]);
a sampling frequency determining step that determines that a sampling frequency of the electromagnetic wave that the radio wave sensor emits is a sampling frequency whose Nyquist frequency is equal to an identified upper limit of the frequency (Riley et al. “At stage 418, the process 410 includes, in response to the oscillation rate being undesirable…increasing a present sampling rate of the location signals to satisfy Nyquist criteria for the oscillation rate.” - ¶ [0041]); and
a sampling frequency setting step that sets the sampling frequency of the electromagnetic wave to the sampling frequency determined by the sampling frequency determining step (Riley et al. “At stage 418, the process 410 includes, in response to the oscillation rate being undesirable…increasing a present sampling rate of the location signals to satisfy Nyquist criteria for the oscillation rate… The control module 304 monitors the determined oscillation rate and responds to (and is responsive to) the oscillation rate being an undesirable rate, e.g., one that is likely to induce errors in position determinations, by controlling the measuring of the location signals and/or the processing of the measured location signals to help avoid the errors that would likely be induced without such changes in the measuring and/or processing of the location signals.” - ¶ [0041]) Examiner notes that the Nyquist frequency is the maximum measured frequency that can be accurately digitized without aliasing. Therefore, it would be obvious from the teachings of Riley et al. that the upper limit of the oscillation rate, the Nyquist frequency, must be identified in order to increase the sampling rate to satisfy Nyquist criteria for the oscillation rate.).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Riley et al. into the invention of Ghoshal to yield the invention of claim 2 above. Both Ghoshal and Riley et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose measuring vibration signals in order to remove vibrational noise from radio wave measurements. Ghoshal discloses the limitations of claim 2 outlined above. However, Ghoshal fails to explicitly disclose a vibration frequency upper limit identifying step that recognizes a frequency range of the vibration and identifies an upper limit of the frequency of the vibration; a sampling frequency determining step that determines that a sampling frequency of the electromagnetic wave that the radio wave sensor emits is a sampling frequency whose Nyquist frequency is equal to an identified upper limit of the frequency; and a sampling frequency setting step that sets the sampling frequency of the electromagnetic wave to the sampling frequency determined by the sampling frequency determining step. This feature is disclosed by Riley et al. where the oscillation frequency of a mobile device is measured and used to adjust the sampling rate of a GNSS receiver in a mobile device to mitigate undesirable effects. The combination of Ghoshal and Riley et al. would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to “mitigate undesired effects of oscillation” and “reduce the possibility of mistaken conclusions by improperly processing data.” (Riley et al. ¶ [0031])
Regarding claim 3, Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
The sensor system according to Claim 1, further comprising:
a vibration component removing part (Ghoshal vibration cancellation 160, Fig. 3B) that attenuates or removes component of the vibration measured by the vibration sensor from the reflected wave (Ghoshal "As described above, the vibration signal (V) from the gyroscope 114 can be subtracted from the RF sensor signal (C+V) leaving behind the cardiac signal (C), thus cancelling out the interference of the vibration noise." - ¶ [0060]).
Regarding claim 4, Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
The sensor system according to Claim 3, further comprising:
a vital sign detecting part (Ghoshal algorithm 150, Fig.3B), wherein the measuring object is a human body (Ghoshal subject 102, Figs. 1A-1B), and the vital sign detecting part detects a vital sign of the human body from a reflected wave (Ghoshal " A heart rate detection system is presented which utilizes high frequency radio frequency (RF) signals transmitted to and reflected back from the body of a mammal (e.g., RF signals reflected from the upper torso of a human subject under test where the heart is located).” - ¶ [0004]) in which the component of the vibration is attenuated or removed by the vibration component removing part (Ghoshal after cancellation 144, "The samples are then passed to an algorithm 150 that detects heartbeats… Another algorithm 148 may be used to detect respiratory rate." - ¶ [0072]; Fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 5, Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
The sensor system according to Claim 4, wherein
the vibration sensor is a built-in vibration sensor of a wearable device (Ghoshal "Similarly, an RF sensor with vibration cancellation may be configured to be held by a user, worn by a user, or otherwise placed proximate to a user in transit, whether due to human motion and/or vehicular motion." - ¶ [0004]; “In some examples, the RF sensor and/or the processing device are implemented as the computer system 1000. In this regard, the computer system 1000 may be a circuit or circuits included in an electronic board card, such as, a PCB, a server, a personal computer, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, an array of computers, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a computing pad, a mobile device, or any other device, and may represent, for example, a server or a user's computer.” - ¶ [0080]).
Regarding claim 6, Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
The sensor system according to Claim 4, wherein
the vibration sensor is a built-in vibration sensor of a smartphone (Ghoshal "Similarly, an RF sensor with vibration cancellation may be configured to be held by a user, worn by a user, or otherwise placed proximate to a user in transit, whether due to human motion and/or vehicular motion." - ¶ [0004]; “In some examples, the RF sensor and/or the processing device are implemented as the computer system 1000. In this regard, the computer system 1000 may be a circuit or circuits included in an electronic board card, such as, a PCB, a server, a personal computer, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, an array of computers, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a computing pad, a mobile device, or any other device, and may represent, for example, a server or a user's computer.” - ¶ [0080]).
Regarding claim 7, Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
A vehicle comprising the sensor system according to Claim 6 (Ghoshal vehicle 101, Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 8, Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
The sensor system according to Claim 1, wherein
the vibration sensor is a built-in vibration sensor of a wearable device (Ghoshal "Similarly, an RF sensor with vibration cancellation may be configured to be held by a user, worn by a user, or otherwise placed proximate to a user in transit, whether due to human motion and/or vehicular motion." - ¶ [0004]; “In some examples, the RF sensor and/or the processing device are implemented as the computer system 1000. In this regard, the computer system 1000 may be a circuit or circuits included in an electronic board card, such as, a PCB, a server, a personal computer, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, an array of computers, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a computing pad, a mobile device, or any other device, and may represent, for example, a server or a user's computer.” - ¶ [0080]).
Regarding claim 9, Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
The sensor system according to Claim 1, wherein
the vibration sensor is a built-in vibration sensor of a smartphone (Ghoshal "Similarly, an RF sensor with vibration cancellation may be configured to be held by a user, worn by a user, or otherwise placed proximate to a user in transit, whether due to human motion and/or vehicular motion." - ¶ [0004]; “In some examples, the RF sensor and/or the processing device are implemented as the computer system 1000. In this regard, the computer system 1000 may be a circuit or circuits included in an electronic board card, such as, a PCB, a server, a personal computer, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, an array of computers, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a computing pad, a mobile device, or any other device, and may represent, for example, a server or a user's computer.” - ¶ [0080]).
Regarding claim 10, Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
The sensor system according to Claim 3, wherein
the vibration sensor is a built-in vibration sensor of a wearable device (Ghoshal "Similarly, an RF sensor with vibration cancellation may be configured to be held by a user, worn by a user, or otherwise placed proximate to a user in transit, whether due to human motion and/or vehicular motion." - ¶ [0004]; “In some examples, the RF sensor and/or the processing device are implemented as the computer system 1000. In this regard, the computer system 1000 may be a circuit or circuits included in an electronic board card, such as, a PCB, a server, a personal computer, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, an array of computers, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a computing pad, a mobile device, or any other device, and may represent, for example, a server or a user's computer.” - ¶ [0080]).
Regarding claim 11, Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
The sensor system according to Claim 3, wherein
the vibration sensor is a built-in vibration sensor of a smartphone (Ghoshal "Similarly, an RF sensor with vibration cancellation may be configured to be held by a user, worn by a user, or otherwise placed proximate to a user in transit, whether due to human motion and/or vehicular motion." - ¶ [0004]; “In some examples, the RF sensor and/or the processing device are implemented as the computer system 1000. In this regard, the computer system 1000 may be a circuit or circuits included in an electronic board card, such as, a PCB, a server, a personal computer, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, an array of computers, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a computing pad, a mobile device, or any other device, and may represent, for example, a server or a user's computer.” - ¶ [0080]).
Regarding claim 12, Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
A vehicle comprising the sensor system according to Claim 1 (Ghoshal vehicle 101, Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 13, Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
A vehicle comprising the sensor system according to Claim 3 (Ghoshal vehicle 101, Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 14, Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
A vehicle comprising the sensor system according to Claim 4 (Ghoshal vehicle 101, Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 15, Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
A vehicle comprising the sensor system according to Claim 5 (Ghoshal vehicle 101, Fig. 1B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAOMI M WOLFORD whose telephone number is (571)272-3929. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 4:30 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, Resha Desai can be reached at (571)270-7792. 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.
NAOMI M. WOLFORD
Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/N.M.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
1 APR 2026
/RESHA DESAI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights