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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 05/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument (REMARKS pages 7-8 of 9) about amended Claim 1, Examiner disagrees because Rao (‘849) discloses the newly added limitations “wherein the compact data matrix has a slow-time dimension smaller than a slow-time dimension of the data matrix, and an entry of the compact data matrix for each respective range of a plurality of ranges is a function of two or more slow-time samples of the data matrix at the respective range” { Fig.10B (see marks below); [0204] line 5 (a slow-time fast Fourier transform (FFT),)}. In Fig.10B, “FFT window” on slow-time index is for the claimed language “smaller than a slow-time dimension of the data matrix” because each FFT has window size which is smaller than slow time index. Therefore, after FFT, the slow-time dimension is smaller. In Fig.10B, “FFT window” on slow-time index is also for the claimed language “a function of two or more slow-time samples of the data matrix at the respective range” because FFT over slow-time is implemented using “slow-time samples of the data matrix at the respective range” and FFT window size corresponding to “two or more slow-time samples”.
PNG
media_image1.png
366
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: “The method of claim 4” in line 1. It appears that “4” should be “5” because peak is determined in claim 5. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities: “The method of claim 16” in line 1. It appears that “16” should be “17” because peak is determined in claim 17. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "a target" in line 2 and "a target" in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear what relationship between the “a target” in lines 2-3 with “the target” mentioned in line 2. “the target” mentioned in line 2 and the two "a target" mentioned in lines 2 and 3 correspond to a same “the range interval”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, these limitations are being interpreted as “the target”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
Claim 14 recites the limitations "a target" in line 2 and "a target" in line 3. It is indefinite because it is not clear what relationship between the “a target” in lines 2-3 with the “a target” mentioned in claim 13 line 12. The “a target” mentioned in claim 13 line 12 and the two "a target" mentioned in lines 2 and 3 correspond to a same “range interval”. Because the claim is indefinite and cannot be properly construed, for purposes of examination, these limitations are being interpreted as “the target”. Appropriate clarifications are required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9, 13-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rao et al. (US 2023/0039849, hereafter Rao).
Regarding claim 1, Rao (‘849) discloses that A method {Title (method)}, comprising:
obtaining a data matrix indicating ranges over slow time based on radar data acquired by a radar sensor { Fig.4A items 420 (PREFORM DETECTION USING RADAR), 430 (IDENTIFY RAW SIGNAL MEASUREMENTS), 450 (ACTIVITY DETECTION); Fig.4B items 430a, 450a(activity detection); Fig.10B (range-slow-time-Doppler); [0089] lines 1-2 (In step 430, the electronic device 200 identifies raw signal measurements from the received radar signals.); [0102] lines 2-4 (raw CIR stream 430a, The raw CIR stream 430a can be similar to the raw signal measurements identified in step 430 of FIG. 4A); [0105] lines 1-3 (activity detection branch 450a converts the filtered CIR into, range-slow-time power map)};
determining a compact data matrix of reduced size by compressing the data matrix over slow time { Fig.10B (FFT along slow-time); [0234] lines 7-10 (applying the FFT on CIR blocks of size N FFT (eg. 16 or 32) across the slow-time index n as described in Equation (49), below. By accumulating these Range-Doppler maps for all such CIR blocks), Eq.(49); Examiner’s note: accumulating for “reduced size”}, wherein the compact data matrix has a slow-time dimension smaller than a slow-time dimension of the data matrix {Fig.10B (FFT window, slow-time index after FFT) (see marks below); Examiner’s note: “FFT window” on slow-time index for “smaller than a slow-time dimension of the data matrix” because each FFT has window size which is smaller than slow time index. Therefore, after FFT, the slow-time dimension is smaller.}, and an entry of the compact data matrix for each respective range of a plurality of ranges is a function of two or more slow-time samples of the data matrix at the respective range {Fig.10B (FFT window, slow-time index after FFT) (see marks below); [0204] line 5 (a slow-time fast Fourier transform (FFT),) Examiner’s note: “FFT window” on slow-time index for “a function of two or more slow-time samples of the data matrix at the respective range” because FFT over slow-time is implemented using “slow-time samples of the data matrix at the respective range” and FFT window size corresponding to “two or more slow-time samples”.};
PNG
media_image1.png
366
382
media_image1.png
Greyscale
determining a range interval of a target based on the compact data matrix { Fig.4B item 458 (trigger signal), 490 (crop features); Fig.5C (left); [0120] lines 1-7 (the trigger signal 458, gating features, step 490 crops the features stored in the buffer of step 464, based on the identified start and stop times of the activity (as identified in the activity detection branch 450a).); Examiner’s note: Fig.4B item 458 is based on item 450a, therefore “based on the compact data matrix;”};
processing exclusively the determined range interval in the data matrix to determine a movement of the target {Fig.4B item 472 (perform classification), 474 (Perform activity recognition task); [0043] lines 9-10 (An activity can include a gesture such as detected movements of an external object); [0121] lines 1-2 (In step 472, the electronic device 200 performs a classification to classify an activity), 5-7 (can recognize the gesture, step 474, performs an activity corresponding to the recognized task)};
extracting a time-series of at least one feature of the movement {[0006] lines 5-7 (The processor is also configured to identify a first set of features and a second set of features from received reflections of the radar signals); [0007] lines 5-6 (the first set of features indicating whether an activity is detected); [0043] lines 9-10 (An activity can include a gesture such as detected movements of an external object); [0096] lines 15-17 (processes a time-series of one or more of these features stored in the memory buffer to determine whether there is target activity in the radar's ROI); [0105] lines 6-10 (The activity detection branch 450a processes a time-series of one or more of these features to determine whether there is target activity in the ROI of the radar and crops the filtered CIR based on a determined 'start' and 'stop' times of the activity in the ROI)}; and
recognizing a gesture based on the time-series of the at least one feature of the movement { Fig.4B item 472 (perform classification); Fig.11F; Fig.11G (Output gesture); [0096] lines 15-17 (processes a time-series of one or more of these features stored in the memory buffer to determine whether there is target activity in the radar's ROI) ; [0121] lines 1-2 (In step 472, the electronic device 200 performs a classification to classify an activity), 5 (can recognize the gesture); Examiner’s note: Fig.4B item 472 based on item 450a, which include time series in item 452 (feature)}.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Rao (‘849) discloses that in the method, determining the range interval of the target comprises
determining the range interval of the target nearest to the radar sensor or the target second nearest to the radar sensor based on the compact data matrix {Fig.4B item 490 (crop features); Fig.5C left (range bin); [0120] lines 3-4 (step 490 crops the features stored in the buffer of step 464); [0162] lines 1-5 (In step 490a, when the activity detection branch 450a indicates that an activity is detected (including a start time and an end time of the activity), cropped based on the identified start and end time.); Examiner’s note: Fig.5C for “the target nearest to the radar sensor or the target second nearest to the radar sensor”}.
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Rao (‘849) discloses that in the method, processing exclusively the determined range interval in the data matrix comprises
determining at least one of a velocity, an azimuth, or an elevation of the target for the determined range interval { Fig.11B (range-velocity-angle)(see mark below); [0072] lines 10-11 (identify changes in azimuth and/or elevation of the external object relative to the radar transceiver 270.)}.
PNG
media_image2.png
511
725
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Rao (‘849) discloses that in the method, processing exclusively the determined range interval in the data matrix comprises
determining a velocity representation of the data matrix for the determined range interval { Fig.10F; Fig.11B (range-velocity-angle)(see the mark in the rejection of claim 3 above)}.
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1 and 4, Rao (‘849) discloses that in the method, determining the movement of the target comprises
determining a velocity of the movement of the target by determining a peak in the velocity representation of the data matrix {Fig.10F; Fig.11B (see mark below); [0105] lines 7-8 (one or more of these features to determine whether there is target activity in the ROI of the radar); [0198] lines 2-3 (identifying features for gating, 10F); Examiner’s note: white boxes in Fig.11B Range-Doppler data matrix for “peak”}.
PNG
media_image3.png
508
697
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 1, Rao (‘849) discloses that in the method, determining the compact data matrix comprises
compressing the data matrix over multiple channels of the radar data {Fig.3 item 306; Fig.11B (slow-time FFT, hc,1-N), Multi-RX Range-Doppler Map; [0088] lines 15-16 (the ith RX antenna, denoted by hi[n, m],); [0091] line 10 (the 'clutter-removed CIR' hc,i[n, m]) ; Examiner’s note: Fig.3 for “multiple channels”. FFT for “compressing”}.
Regarding claim 13, Rao (‘849) discloses that A system { Title (apparatus)} comprising:
a processor {Fig.2 item 240 (processors)}; and
a memory coupled to the processor {Fig.2 item 240 (processor) coupled to item 260 (memory)} with instructions stored thereon, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, enable the system {[0008] lines 1-5 (a non-transitory computer-readable medium embodying a computer program, the computer program comprising computer readable program code that, when executed by a processor of an electronic device, causes the processor to); [0011] lines 12-15 (phrase "computer readable medium" includes any type of medium capable of being accessed by a computer, such as read only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM),)} to:
obtain a data matrix indicating ranges over slow time based on radar data acquired by a radar sensor;
determine a compact data matrix of reduced size by compressing the data matrix over slow time, wherein the compact data matrix has a slow-time dimension smaller than a slow-time dimension of the data matrix, and an entry of the compact data matrix for each respective range of a plurality of ranges is a function of two or more slow-time samples of the data matrix at the respective range;
determine a range interval of a target based on the compact data matrix;
process exclusively the determined range interval in the data matrix to determine a movement of the target;
extract a time-series of at least one feature of the movement; and
recognize a gesture based on the time-series of the at least one feature of the movement.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
Regarding claims 14-17, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 2-5, respectively. Accordingly, claims 14-17 are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claims 2-5, respectively, shown above.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 1, Rao (‘849) discloses that the system comprising
control circuitry configured to control an operation of the system based on the recognized gesture {Fig.2; [0043] lines 9-11 (An activity can include a gesture such as detected movements of an external object that is used to control the electronic device )}.
Regarding claim 20, Rao (‘849) discloses that An apparatus for gesture recognition { tile (apparatus, activity detection and recognition); [0121] lines 1-2 (In step 472, the electronic device 200 performs a classification to classify an activity), 5 (can recognize the gesture)}, comprising processing circuitry {Fig.2} configured to:
obtain a data matrix indicating ranges over slow time based on radar data acquired by a radar sensor;
determine a compact data matrix of reduced size by compressing the data matrix over slow time, wherein the compact data matrix has a slow-time dimension smaller than a slow-time dimension of the data matrix, and an entry of the compact data matrix for each respective range of a plurality of ranges is a function of two or more slow-time samples of the data matrix at the respective range;
determine a range interval of a target based on the compact data matrix;
process exclusively the determined range interval in the data matrix to determine a movement of the target;
extract a time-series of at least one feature of the movement; and
recognize a gesture based on the time-series of the at least one feature of the movement.
{The claim limitations above are the same or substantially the same scope as the corresponding claim limitations in claim 1. Therefore the claim limitations above are rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as in claim 1. See the rejections of claim 1}.
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.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (‘849) as applied to claims 4 and 16, respectively, above, and further in view of Carroll et al . (US 2021/0208269, hereafter Carroll).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claims 1 and 4, Rao (‘849) does not explicitly disclose “applying a phase-comparison monopulse on the velocity representation for the determined peak in the velocity representation”. In the same field of endeavor, Carroll (‘269) discloses that the method further comprising
applying a phase-comparison monopulse on the velocity representation for the determined peak in the velocity representation {[0049] lines 1-5 (radar data may be organized in sets of Range Doppler ( RD ) map information , corresponding to four dimensional ( 4D ) information that is determined by each RF beam reflected from targets , such as azimuthal angles , elevation angles , range , and velocity .); [0064] line 8 (reaches a peak value at the corresponding position of object); [0076] lines 1-2 (road map data generated from the phase - comparison monopulse map data generated from the phase - comparison monopulse), 10-13 (the plot 1100 is accompanied by a legend 1110 that indicates the range of velocity values assigned to the detected objects that represent the Doppler effect of these objects .); Examiner’s note: object for “peak”}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rao (‘849) with the teachings of Carroll (‘269) {use a phase-comparison monopulse techniques on radar data matrix (e.g. including velocity)} to use a phase-comparison monopulse techniques on radar data matrix (e.g. including velocity). Doing so would effectively resolve multiple objects inside a main beam with a high degree of accuracy and angular resolution so as to provide improved dynamic , responsive , and intelligent functionality (e.g. fully understand a dynamic , fast - moving environment in real time with human - like intelligence to act in response to changes in the environment) for autonomous driving using sensors (e.g. radar), as recognized by Carroll (‘269) {[0003] lines 11-16 (have full understanding of a dynamic , fast - moving environment in real time and human - like intelligence to act in response to changes in the environment . provide improved dynamic , responsive , and intelligent functionality for autonomous driving ); [0016] lines 1-2 from bottom (effectively resolve multiple objects inside a main beam with a high degree of accuracy and angular resolution)}.
Regarding claim 18, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claims 6. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 6, shown above.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (‘849) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Santra et al . (US 2020/0116850, hereafter Santra).
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, Rao (‘849) does not explicitly disclose that “determining a phase shift along the slow time of the data matrix for the determined range interval; and determining a velocity of the movement of the target based on the phase shift”. In the same field of endeavor, Santra (‘850) discloses that in the method, processing exclusively the determined range interval in the data matrix comprises:
determining a phase shift along the slow time of the data matrix for the determined range interval {[0054] lines 1 (the range - Doppler map), 4-7 (selecting target range – Doppler peaks . For example , if a target has velocity VT = k ·1 / PRT , where PRT is the pulse repetition time , the phase difference induced along slow - time is
PNG
media_image4.png
30
147
media_image4.png
Greyscale
), 10-12 (once the peak is selected , the range – Doppler map is , in effect , compensated for the Doppler component of the identified target)}; and
determining a velocity of the movement of the target based on the phase shift {[0054] lines 10-14 (once the peak is selected , the range – Doppler map is , in effect , compensated for the Doppler component of the identified target, compensated for the corresponding Doppler velocity of each identified target)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rao (‘849) with the teachings of Santra (‘850) {measure phase difference along slow-time for Doppler velocity compensation} to measure phase difference along slow-time for Doppler velocity compensation. Doing so would provide a macro-compensating range - Doppler map so as to increase the angle of arrival θ accuracy (e.g. using a phase mono - pulse technique) in coherent and non - coherent signal processing, as recognized by Santra (‘850) {[0003] lines 1-2 from bottom (to perform coherent and non - coherent signal processing); [0043] lines 1-3 (the accuracy of the estimated angle θ ( determined in step 326 ) depends on the accuracy of the phase difference Δ ϕ); [0045] lines 2-7 (macro - Doppler components associated with a moving human, compensating for effects of Doppler components in the estimation of angle of arrival θ , increasing the angle of arrival θ accuracy); [0048] lines 3-6 (angle estimation error using a phase mono - pulse technique versus SNR of the range - Doppler map after Doppler velocity compensation .) }.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claims 1 and 7, Rao (‘849) does not explicitly disclose “applying a phase-comparison monopulse to phases of multiple channels in the compact data matrix”. In the same field of endeavor, Santra (‘850) discloses that the method further comprising
applying a phase-comparison monopulse to phases of multiple channels in the compact data matrix {Fig.2; [0009] lines 1-3 (FIG . 2 illustrates an operation of an exemplary implementation of a phase mono - pulse technique for estimating the angle of arrival of incident signals); [0019] lines 3-5 (compensating for Doppler components before calculating the angle of arrival using a phase mono - pulse algorithm); Examiner’s note: “Doppler components” for “the compact data matrix”. Fig.2 for “applying a phase-comparison monopulse to phases of multiple channels”}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rao (‘849) with the teachings of Santra (‘850) {measure phase difference along slow-time for Doppler velocity compensation and use phase mono - pulse technique in data processing} to measure phase difference along slow-time for Doppler velocity compensation and use phase mono - pulse technique in data processing. Doing so would provide a macro-compensating range - Doppler map so as to increase the angle of arrival θ accuracy (e.g. using a phase mono - pulse technique) in coherent and non - coherent signal processing, as recognized by Santra (‘850) {[0003] lines 1-2 from bottom (to perform coherent and non - coherent signal processing); [0043] lines 1-3 (the accuracy of the estimated angle θ ( determined in step 326 ) depends on the accuracy of the phase difference Δ ϕ); [0045] lines 2-7 (macro - Doppler components associated with a moving human, compensating for effects of Doppler components in the estimation of angle of arrival θ , increasing the angle of arrival θ accuracy); [0048] lines 3-6 (angle estimation error using a phase mono - pulse technique versus SNR of the range - Doppler map after Doppler velocity compensation .) }.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (‘849) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou et al . (US 11,061,115, hereafter Zhou).
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 1, Rao (‘849) does not explicitly disclose “the data matrix comprises at most two chirps of the radar data”. In the same field of endeavor, Zhou (‘115) discloses that in the method,
the data matrix comprises at most two chirps of the radar data { Fig.5 item S206 (Determining , by the terminal , second information according to the at least one piece of first information in a slow time array , where the second information characterizes a frequency change between the at least one beam); Fig.6}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rao (‘849) with the teachings of Zhou (‘115) {construct a dataset for analysis from two chirp signals} to construct a dataset for analysis from two chirp signals. Doing so would obtain sequence of characteristic values so as to improve the accuracy of gesture recognition, as recognized by Zhou (‘115) { Fig.9 (sequence of characteristic values); col.1 lines 53-54 (improve the accuracy of gesture recognition)}.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao (‘849) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goswami et al . (US 2020/0132811, hereafter Goswami).
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 1, Rao (‘849) discloses that the method further comprising:
determining whether a target is present based on the data matrix { Fig.5C (left); Fig.11B (see mark below)}; and
PNG
media_image5.png
433
597
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
However, Rao (‘849) does not explicitly disclose (see words with underline) “in response to determining that a target is present, triggering the radar sensor to increase at least one of a frame rate, a number of chirps per frame, or a number of samples per chirp of the radar sensor”. In the same field of endeavor, Goswami (‘811) discloses that
in response to determining that a target is present, triggering the radar sensor to increase at least one of a frame rate, a number of chirps per frame, or a number of samples per chirp of the radar sensor { Fig.3b; [0028] lines 1-4 (FIG . 3b shows a frame 350 of the FMCW radar system 100 operating in classification mode, where the FMCW radar system 100 classifies one or more gestures based on features extracted from the received radar signals); Examiner’s note: “classification mode” for “in response to determining that a target is present”}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rao (‘849) with the teachings of Goswami (‘811) {use short time between chirps in classification mode } to use short time between chirps in classification mode. Doing so would allow for an increased maximum detectable velocity to assist in classifying the one or more gestures so as to accurately detect the start of an intended gesture by operate the FMCW radar system in a classification mode , in response to determining that the motion metric is above a threshold, , while still benefitting from the reduced power consumption, as recognized by Goswami (‘811) {[0002] lines 10-12 (operate the FMCW radar system in a classification mode , in response to determining that the motion metric is above a threshold), 15-18 (An amount of power consumed by the FMCW radar system in the detection mode is less than an amount of power consumed by the FMCW radar system in the classification mode .); [0026] lines 4-6 (allows the FMCW radar system 100 to accurately detect the start of an intended gesture , while still benefitting from the reduced power consumption); [0028] lines 6-8 (allows for an increased maximum detectable velocity to assist in classifying the one or more gestures)}.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claims 1 and 11, Rao (‘849) does not explicitly disclose “in response to determining that no target is present, triggering the radar sensor to decrease at least one of the frame rate, the number of chirps per frame, or the number of samples per chirp”. In the same field of endeavor, Goswami (‘811) discloses that the method further comprising,
in response to determining that no target is present, triggering the radar sensor to decrease at least one of the frame rate, the number of chirps per frame, or the number of samples per chirp {Fig.3a; [0025] lines 1-3 (FIG . 3a shows a frame 300 of the FMCW radar system 100 operating in detection mode , where the FMCW radar system 100 detects the start of an intended gesture .)}.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rao (‘849) with the teachings of Goswami (‘811) {use short time between chirps in classification mode and use long time between chirps in detection mode } to use short time between chirps in classification mode and use long time between chirps in detection mode. Doing so would allow for an increased maximum detectable velocity to assist in classifying the one or more gestures for accurately detect the start of an intended gesture by operate the FMCW radar system in a classification mode , in response to determining that the motion metric is above a threshold, and save power in detection mode so as to benefit from the reduced power consumption, as recognized by Goswami (‘811) {[0002] lines 10-12 (operate the FMCW radar system in a classification mode , in response to determining that the motion metric is above a threshold), 15-18 (An amount of power consumed by the FMCW radar system in the detection mode is less than an amount of power consumed by the FMCW radar system in the classification mode .); [0025] lines 1-2 from bottom (in detection mode , additional power may be saved by using only a single receive antenna); [0026] lines 4-6 (allows the FMCW radar system 100 to accurately detect the start of an intended gesture , while still benefitting from the reduced power consumption); [0028] lines 6-8 (allows for an increased maximum detectable velocity to assist in classifying the one or more gestures)}.
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 YONGHONG LI whose telephone number is (571)272-5946. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/YONGHONG LI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights