DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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.
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 6 JULY 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4 have been amended. Claims 16-20 have been added. Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 2 being independent.
Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in the previous office action dated 7 APR 2026. The interpretation has been reconsidered and withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 JULY 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Ghoshal in view of Riley et al., the applicant argues that the cited reference fails to disclose all the features of the claimed invention, specifically “vibration to be superposed on the reflected wave as noise.” (applicant’s remarks p. 6)
Applicant argues that “the Office Action acknowledges that Ghoshal fails to disclose the sampling frequency setting of the independent claims, and relies on Riley for this teaching. However, Riley deals with oscillation of a mobile device during walking / hand swinging, in the context of GNSS sampling / wake-up control, whereas current pending claim 1 is directed to “vibration superposed on the reflected wave as noise”. In other words, even if Riley’s “oscillation” may broadly be regarded as some kind of motion, this oscillation does not read on the limitations recited in the independent claims, i.e., “vibration to be superposed on the reflected wave as noise.” In particular, Riley adjusts GNSS sampling timing not filtering a radio-wave measurement reflected from a “measuring object.” (applicant’s remarks p. 6)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Merriam-Webster defines vibration as “a periodic motion of the particles of an elastic body or medium in alternately opposite directions from the position of equilibrium when that equilibrium has been disturbed… the action of vibrating: the state of being vibrated or vibratory motion: such as… oscillation…” Accordingly, the oscillation of a mobile device during walking / hand swinging is reasonably considered vibration. An undesirable oscillation rate of the mobile device can cause induce errors and aliasing in position determination. Merriam-Webster defines noise as “an unwanted signal or disturbance (such as static or a variation of voltage) in an electronic device or instrument (such as a radio or television).” The errors and aliasing induced by the oscillation are unwanted signals or disturbances and thus constitute noise in the position measurements of Riley. Further, Riley discloses that “The effects of the stride may also be mathematically filtered to reduce aliasing.” In summary, Riley discloses vibration superposed on a wave as noise and a method of filtering the noise. Although Riley does not disclose that the wave is a reflected wave, Ghoshal was relied upon to teach this feature. Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
Applicant further argues that “In particular, as noted, e.g., in ¶¶28-29 of the As-filed Specification, by treating this vibration as noise avoids setting the sample frequency to an excessively high value, reducing power consumption. In other words, the purpose of this vibration-as-noise characterization is specifically to control the sampling frequency of the radio wave sensor’s emitted electromagnetic waves so as to avoid wastefully high sampling rates when digitizing a reflected-wave radar signal, i.e., a noise-rejection technique internal to a radar-type ranging/reflection measurement.” (applicant’s remarks p. 6-7)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “treating this vibration as noise avoids setting the sample frequency to an excessively high value, reducing power consumption”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “there is no motivation to combine these references, as Riley’s field (pedestrian GNSS positioning) and Ghoshal’s field (reflected-wave vital-sign sensing) address different problems, and the Office Action’s premise that both references “remove vibrational noise from radio wave measurements” mischaracterizes Riley, which adjusts GNSS sampling timing.” (applicant’s remarks p. 7)
Applicant appears to be arguing that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of the Ghoshal and Riley because Ghoshal and Riley are not analogous to each other. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325, 72 USPQ2d 1209, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). MPEP 2141.01(a)
In this case, Ghoshal is analogous to the claimed invention because:
Ghoshal is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, as Ghoshal pertains to using radar signals to measure vital signs.
Ghoshal is reasonably pertinent to the problem of removing vibrational noise from radio wave measurements.
Riley is analogous to the claimed invention because:
Riley is reasonably pertinent to the problem of removing vibrational noise from radio wave measurements. As discussed above, the oscillation of the mobile device is considered a vibration, and the oscillation of the mobile device induces errors and aliasing, which are considered noise.
Additionally, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, both Ghoshal and Riley use radio frequency waves to measure a distance at some sampling rate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the applicant’s filing to modify the invention of Ghoshal to include the sampling frequency setting circuit of Riley for the purpose of mitigating the undesired effects of oscillation and reducing the possibility of mistaken conclusions by improperly processing data (Riley et al. ¶ [0031]). Therefore, applicant’s argument on this issue is not persuasive.
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.
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) 1-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghoshal (US 2021/0128068 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Riley et al. (US 2013/0328726 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner, cited by applicant in IDS dated 13 MAY 2024).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), 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 configured to emit an electromagnetic wave toward a measuring object and receive 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 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 circuit (Riley et al. control module 304, Fig. 3) configured to:
recognize a frequency range of the vibration and identify an upper limit of the frequency of the vibration (Riley et al. “The control module 304 monitors the determined oscillation rate…” - ¶ [0041]),
determine that a sampling frequency of the electromagnetic wave 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
set the sampling frequency of the electromagnetic wave 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 circuit configured to: recognize a frequency range of the vibration and identify an upper limit of the frequency of the vibration, determine 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 set 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 (Currently Amended), Ghoshal discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Ghoshal has been struck-through]
A radio wave transmitting and receiving method comprising:
emitting 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 measuring 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:
measuring vibration (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]) to be superposed on the 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]);
determining a frequency range of the vibration and identifying 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]);
determining 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
setting the sampling frequency of the electromagnetic wave to the 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 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 determining a frequency range of the vibration and identifying an upper limit of the frequency of the vibration; determining 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 setting the sampling frequency of the electromagnetic wave to the 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 3 (Currently Amended), Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
The sensor system according to Claim 1, further comprising:
a vibration component removing circuit (Ghoshal vibration cancellation 160, Fig. 3B) configured to attenuate or remove a 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 (Currently Amended), Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
The sensor system according to Claim 3, further comprising:
a vital sign detector (Ghoshal algorithm 150, Fig.3B; “An algorithm engine may incorporate digital filters 145 and at least one processor that executes a first algorithm 148 detecting respiratory rate, and that executes a second algorithm 150 detecting heart rate.” - ¶ [0058]), wherein
the measuring object is a human body (Ghoshal subject 102, Figs. 1A-1B), and
the vital sign detector is configured to detect 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 (Original), 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 (Original), 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 (Original), Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
A vehicle comprising the sensor system according to Claim 6 (Ghoshal vehicle 101, Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 8 (Original), 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 (Original), 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 (Original), 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 (Original), 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 (Original), Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
A vehicle comprising the sensor system according to Claim 1 (Ghoshal vehicle 101, Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 13 (Original), Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
A vehicle comprising the sensor system according to Claim 3 (Ghoshal vehicle 101, Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 14 (Original), Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
A vehicle comprising the sensor system according to Claim 4 (Ghoshal vehicle 101, Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 15 (Original), Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
A vehicle comprising the sensor system according to Claim 5 (Ghoshal vehicle 101, Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 16 (New), Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
The sensor system according to Claim 1, wherein the vibration is vibration of a vehicle (Ghoshal vehicle 101, Fig. 1B; “A system and method to compensate for transit-based (e.g., vehicular) vibration when detecting heart rate using radar sensors is provided.” - ¶ [0004]).
Regarding claim 17 (New), Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
The sensor system according to Claim 1, wherein the vibration sensor is installed in a back part (Ghoshal seatback 104A, Figs. 1A-1B) of a seat (Ghoshal gyroscope 114 is disposed in seatback 104A the seat, Fig. 1A-1B), a seat part of the seat, or a floor of a vehicle interior.
Regarding claim 18 (New), Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
The sensor system according to Claim 1, wherein the radio wave sensor is a Doppler radar (Ghoshal “Under a Doppler radar approach, the RF sensor 110 transmits an RF signal 111 toward the subject 102 under test and receives a response signal after reflection from the body of the subject 102 under test.” - ¶ [0046]), a Frequency Modulated Continuous Wave (FMCW) radar (Ghoshal “This frequency may be static in the case of continuous wave (CW), or may be chirped in the case of frequency-modulated CW (FM-CW).” - ¶ [0052]), or a pulse radar (Ghoshal “In embodiments using a pulsed radar, a single antenna can act as the transmit antenna 131 and the receive antenna 133.” - ¶ [0051]).
Regarding claim 20 (New), Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
The sensor system according to Claim 4, wherein the vital sign includes at least one of a heart rate, a heart rate variability, a respiration rate, and a depth of respiration of the human body (Ghoshal “The reflected signal is captured with an antenna, processed, and analyzed to extract the heart rate and/or respiratory rate.” - ¶ [0039]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghoshal (US 2021/0128068 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner) in view of Riley et al. (US 2013/0328726 A1, previously relied upon by the examiner, cited by applicant in IDS dated 13 MAY 2024) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Basir et al. (US 2005/0027416 A1, newly cited by the examiner).
Regarding claim 19 (New), Ghoshal as modified above discloses:
[Note: what is not explicitly taught by Ghoshal has been struck-through]
The sensor system according to Claim 3
Basir et al. discloses:
wherein the vibration component removing circuit is configured to separate the vibration measured by the vibration sensor (Basir et al. “Vibration signals from the seat 12 and floor 14 (or bed 30) are sampled through the sensors 16, 22.” - ¶ [0023]) from the reflected wave using independent component analysis (Basir et al. “using independent component analysis to distinguish a heartbeat signal from the environmental noise” – claim 24) or independent vector analysis.
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 Basir et al. into the invention of Ghoshal as modified above to yield the invention of claim 19. Ghoshal, Riley et al. and Basir et al. are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they disclose measuring vibration signals in order to remove vibrational noise from radio wave measurements. Ghoshal as modified above discloses the invention of claim 3. However, Ghoshal fails to explicitly disclose wherein the vibration component removing circuit is configured to separate the vibration measured by the vibration sensor from the reflected wave using independent component analysis or independent vector analysis. This feature is disclosed by Basir et al. where independent component analysis is used to distinguish heartbeat signals from environmental noise (Basir et al. claim 24). The combination of Ghoshal, Riley et al. and Basir 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]) and filter out environmental noise (Basir et al. ¶ [0006]).
Conclusion
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 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
9 SEP 2026
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights