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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed on September22, 2025 has been fully considered and entered. Claim 5 is canceled. Claims 1, 6-7 and 10 are amended. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 are pending and examiner in this Office action.
Response to Amendment
The claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and the subsequent rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), written description support and 112(b) in regard to the limitations associated with the term “a/the signal processing unit” and the functions in that it performs are maintained and a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is now raised.
The rejections to claims 1-4 and 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are now withdrawn in view of the claim amendment. New grounds of rejection are now made. Examiner’s consideration in view of Applicant’s assertion is addressed in the section of Response to Arguments at the end of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103.
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 1-4 and 6 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites in lines 6-8 and 13-17 a/the signal processing unit is configured for performing the following functions: (1) emitting a radio frequency signal to the conductor group, (2) receiving a feedbacks signal generated by the conductor group, (3) generating a time domain and a frequency domain diagrams, and (4) detecting a physiological condition.
Claim 1 then recites in lines 20 till the end (a) a transceiver performing function (1), (b) a central processor performing the function (3) and (4).
It is unclear whether the functions (1), (3) and (4) are performed solely by the component (a) and (b) of the processing unit, or the processing unit has such a capability to perform these functions. For examination purpose, it is interpreted to be the former one. This indefinite issue may be resolved by reciting first the components comprised in the signal processing unit in the claim, then reciting the specific component that performs each of the functions (1) to (4).
Claim 4 recites that the signal processing unit is configured for emitting the radio frequency signal based on a fixed frequency being present. In claim 1, the signal processing unit is recited being configured for emitting the radio frequency, and the transceiver is also recited being configured for emitting the radio frequency. It is hence unclear whether the radio frequency being emitted by the processing unit and by the transceiver is different, since in claim 4 only the emission of radio frequency by the processing unit is further limited to be based on a further condition. Applicant is suggested to amend the claim to recite that, instead of the signal processing unit, “wherein the transceiver is configured for emitting the radio frequency signal based on a fixed frequency being present…”.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al., US 2020/0375497 A1, hereinafter Jin, in view of Xie et al., “DeepVS: a deep learning approach for RF0based vital signs sensing”. BCB ’22, August 7-10, 2022, Northbrook, IL, USA, hereinafter Xie, further in view of Mamandipoor et al., US 2023/0092386 A1, hereinafter Mamandipoor.
Claims 1 and 7. Jin teaches in FIGS.18 and 31 a fabric module and a physiological condition detection method of a fabric module, the fabric module capable of detecting a physiological condition by utilizing a radio frequency signal ([0014]: the system further includes a fabric material adapted to be worn on the body, wherein the plurality of arrays of RF transponders are integrated into the fabric material; and [0111]: physiological conditions may be detected, such as tremors, areas of pain, biological reactions), comprising:
a weaving body ([0018]: the garment includes a shirt…and pants), configured for directly or indirectly contacting with a user ([0075]: the array is arranged an a portion of a body…upper arm, forearm, torso, thing, calf…) – the short and pants are considered the “waving body”;
a conductor group, attached to the weaving body, and having at least two conductors spaced apart from each other ([0074]: each of RF transponders 102a, 102b, 104a, 104b may be arranged spaced apart at a distance);
a signal processing unit, connected to the at least two conductor, configured for
emitting a radio frequency signal to the conductor group, and receiving a feedback signal generated by the conductor group based on the radio frequency signal ([0010]: the reader device is arranged on the body and comprises the at least one processor; [0076]: the activation signal energize each of the passive RF transponders which, in response to being energized, emit one or more response signals 108, 110, 112, 114. The one or more response signals 108, 110, 112, 114 are received by the antenna 101 of the reader device 100) – the one or more response signals are considered the “feedback signal” as claimed; and
a sensing unit, connected to the at least two conductors, so that the conductor group correspondingly generates the feedback signal based on the radio frequency signal ([0072]: device 100 may be a multi-purpose mobile device, such as a smartphone or portable computing device, configured with software and/or circuitry to transmit one or more activation signals, receive a plurality of response signals, and process the received signals…the reader device 100 may include any device capable of communicating with RF transponders) – the received signals are considered the “feedback signal” as claimed; wherein
the sensing unit is a load with a specific impedance or an adjustable impedance ([0077]: each RF transponder 102a, 102b, 104a, 104b may be configured to modulate the response signal using ON-OFF keying by changing an impedance of a respective antenna of the RF transponder), wherein the signal processing unit is configured for
detecting a physiological condition of the user ([0111]: physiological conditions may be detected, such as tremors, areas of pain, biological reactions).
In regard to the configuration of the signal processing unit being connected specifically to one terminal of the at least two conductors, and the sensing unit being connected specifically to another terminal of the at least two conductors, since all these components are connected via circuitry, whether the components are connected to any particular terminal is considered a design choice of the circuitry, as long as the circuitry design allows the components to perform their respective functions to keep the device operable. Hence, the recited configuration is considered among various common practices that normally requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive such a configuration through routine experimentation with reasonable expectation of success. Such an alternate configuration is considered merely rearrangement of parts, which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered routine expedients. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). MPEP 2144.04.VI.C.
Jin does not teach that the feedback signal is processed based on which a time domain periodic signal waveform diagram and a frequency domain periodic signal waveform diagram is generated based on the feedback signal, and the physiological condition of the user is determined based on at least one of the time domain periodic signal waveform diagram and the frequency domain periodic signal waveform diagram.
However, in an analogous RF signal processing for physiological condition detection field of endeavor, Xie teaches
generating a time domain periodic signal waveform diagram and a frequency domain periodic signal waveform diagram based on the feedback signal (FIG.1: the second dashed box it illustrates a periodic signal waveform diagram in the Time Domain and in Frequency Domain upon baseband processing and phase demodulation of the sensed RF signal), and
detecting a physiological condition of the user is determined based on at least one of the time domain periodic signal waveform diagram and the frequency domain periodic signal waveform diagram (FIG.1: the heart rate HR and the respiration rate RR are determined at the end of the flowchart. FIG.1 Legend: the RF sensor emits RF signals into the environment and receive the echoes reflected by the subject in the field of view…The phase signal in the time domain changes periodically corresponding to the physiological movements, and several prominent frequency components can be easily detected in the frequency domain with Fourier Transform…DeepVS exploits 1D CNN to extract local features in both time and frequency domain in a two-stream scheme, the attention module to capture temporal correlations, and two regression layers in a multi-head scheme to estimate HR and RR respectively).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the device and method of Jin employ such features associated with the RF signal processing and the process of detecting the physiological condition as taught in Xie for the advantage of obtaining “robust RF-based vital signal sensing in a unified manner” that “integrates the local features and temporal correlations from time/frequency domains to address the challenges from no-linearity and body movements simultaneously”, as suggested in Xie, p.1, Col. Right, the last paragraph and p.2, Col. Left, the first bullet.
In regard to the components comprised in the signal processing unit and the functions each of them perform –
Jin further teaches
an impedance adapter, connected to the conductor group; a transceiver modulation-demodulation unit, connected to the impedance adapter, configured for emitting the radio frequency signal to the conductor group through the impedance adapter ([0077]: each RF transponder may be configured to modulate the response signals (e.g., backscatter signals) using ON-OFF keying by changing an impedance of a respective antenna of the RF transponder), and
executing a demodulation processing on the feedback signal to generate a demodulation signal ([0077]: the reader device, in response to receiving the response signals, may then demodulate each response signal), and
detecting a physiological condition of the user ([0111]: physiological conditions may be detected, such as tremors, areas of pain, biological reactions).
Neither Jin nor Xie teaches that the signal being processed is a digital signal generated by executing an analog-to-digital conversion processing on the demodulated signal.
However, in an analogous RF signal processing for vital sign detection field of endeavor, Mamandipoor teaches
an analog-to-digital converter, connected to the transceiver modulation-demodulation unit, and configured for executing an analog-to-digital conversion processing on the demodulated signal to generate a digital signal ([0055]: a demodulator 88 may remove a radio frequency envelope and/or extract demodulated signals from the filtered signals for processing. An analog-to-digital converter (ADC) 90 may receive the demodulated analog signals and convert the signals to a digital signals of incoming signals 92 to be further processed by the electronic device 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the device and method of Jin and Xie combined employ such a feature of an analog-to-digital converter, connected to the transceiver modulation-demodulation unit, and configured for executing an analog-to-digital conversion processing on the demodulated signal to generate a digital signal, as taught in Mamandipoor for the conventionally acknowledged advantage of an ADC for improving signal processing as digital signals allow for more efficient and reliable handling of information compared to analog signals obtaining.
Claims 2, 4, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al., US 2020/0375497 A1, hereinafter Jin, in view of Xie et al., “DeepVS: a deep learning approach for RF-based vital signs sensing”. BCB ’22, August 7-10, 2022, Northbrook, IL, USA, hereinafter Xie, further in view of Mamandipoor et al., US 2023/0092386 A1, hereinafter Mamandipoor, further in view of Pagani et al., US 2017/0093024 A1, hereinafter Pagani.
Claims 2 and 8. Jin, Xie and Mamandipoor combined teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 7, respectively, including the at least two conductors (Jin: [0074]).
Jin further teaches that the at least two conductors exhibit a fixed spacing exists between the at least two conductors ([0074]: each RF transponders 102a, 102b may be arranged spaced apart at a distance of l/4 or less, where l is a wavelength of a response signal emitted by each of the RF transponders. Likewise for the transponders 103a, 104b).
Neither of Jin, Xie and Mamandipoor teaches that
the at least two conductors respectively comprise a copper wire and an insulation layer covering the copper wire, the at least two conductors exhibit same bent shape.
However, in an analogous fabric module-based RF detection system field of endeavor, Pagani teaches that
the at least two conductors respectively comprise a copper wire and an insulation layer covering the copper wire ([0094]: conductive wires extend therethrough and are made, for example, of copper or aluminum; and [0096]: the electrical wires 121 and 126 are generally insulated, for example, they have a sheath or a dielectric coating), and
the at least two conductors exhibit same bent shape, and a fixed spacing exists between the at least two conductors (FIG.27a: conductive wires 122 and 123 is mirror symmetric, hence exhibit same bent shape).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the conductive wires of Jin, Xie and Mamandipoor combined employ such features of comprising a copper wire and an insulation layer covering the copper wire, and exhibiting same bent shape, and a fixed spacing exists between the at least two conductors, as taught in Xie as a conventionally known material and configuration for conventional conductive wires.
In regard to the shape of the conductors being a bent shape, and the same shape between the two conductors, it is considered a design choice. The shape of the conductors can be made to any conventional shape depending on the design of the device. It is considered among various common practices that normally requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence are considered routine expedients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive such a bent shape and identical shapes between the two conductors through routine experimentation with reasonable expectation of success. Such an alternate configuration is considered merely changes in shape, which the court has held normally require only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered routine expedients. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.). MPEP 2144.04.IV.B.
Claims 4 and 10. Jin, Xie and Mamandipoor teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 7, respectively.
Neither of Jin, Xie and Mamandipoor teaches that the signal processing unit is configured for emitting the radio frequency signal based on a fixed frequency being preset, and the radio frequency signal is a sine wave signal.
However, in an analogous fabric module-based RF detection system field of endeavor, Pagani teaches
emitting the radio frequency signal based on a fixed frequency being preset, and the radio frequency signal is a sine wave signal ([0076]: the power-supply unit includes a radio-frequency AC current source and control electronics…The radio-frequency AC current source generates at least one signal (for example, a sinusoid, a square wave, a triangular wave) at least one frequency…a signal at a first frequency F0 may supply a plurality of devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the radio frequency signal being emitted based on a fixed frequency being preset, and the radio frequency signal is a sine wave signal, as taught in Pagani for the advantage of having a designated and distinct frequency from the carrier frequency and the frequency for external communication and information transfer, as suggested in Pagani, [0076].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, 9 and 11-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The limitations recited in claims 3 and 9 in regard to the features of “the at least two conductors respectively generate respective capacitive reactance values after receiving the radio frequency signal, and the at least two conductors jointly generate an inductance value after receiving the radio frequency signal, wherein the feedback signal is a periodic signal waveform diagram generated based on the two capacitive reactance values and the inductance value", in combination with the other claimed elements, is/are not taught or disclosed in the prior arts.
The limitations recited in claim 11 in regard to the features of “when no surge shape that is greater than a preset threshold exists in the time domain periodic signal waveform diagram, generating, by the signal processing unit, the frequency domain periodic signal waveform diagram based on the digital signal", in combination with the other claimed elements, is/are not taught or disclosed in the prior arts.
The limitations recited in claims 6 and 12 in regard to the features of “determining that an emergency event occurs to the user when at least one surge shape greater than a preset threshold exists in the time domain periodic signal waveform diagram, and determining whether the user’s breathing or heartbeat is normal based on a signal strength and a frequency in the frequency domain periodic signal waveform diagram", in combination with the other claimed elements, is/are not taught or disclosed in the prior arts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s assertion followed by Examiner’s considerations is addressed below:
Remarks, p.12-15: Applicant asserted that the claimed invention provides a "contact-based". Jin provides a “contact-based” detection method. Yet the technical approach provided by Xie is a “contactless-based” detection method, which is totally different from Jin and definitely cannot be combined with Jin…That is, if the RF transmitter/receiver are directly attached on the user's body, the technical purpose "non-touch solution for continuous and ubiquitous monitoring" of Xie cannot be achieved. Based on this, a person skilled in the art would not have been motivated to combine Xie (contactless-based detection) with Jin (contact-based detection) to achieve the technical solution provided by the claimed invention (contact-based). As a result, Xie teaches away from the claimed invention by applying a contactless-based detection technique.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, as stated in p.8 of the Office action, Jin teaches processing the feedback signal for the detection of physiological conditions. What Jin lacks of teaching is how the RF feedback signal is processed, Xie is cited to cure the deficiency that the RF signals are processed to time domain waveforms and frequency domain waveforms, and based on which the physiological condition is determined. Jin and Xie are considered in an analogous RF signal processing for physiological condition detection field of endeavor. When looking for relevant art for how the RF signals are processed to determine physiological conditions, one of ordinary skill in the art would arrive Xie for the details of RF signal processing. Whether it is a contact-based method or non-contact based method would not affect how the received RF signals being processed. Xie is relied upon merely for the teaching of specifically the demodulation of the RF signals to arrive the time domain and the frequency domain of the feedback signals during a post RF signal acquisition stage.
Remarks, p.15: Applicant asserted that the present application configures every component in same fabric module to implement "contact-based detection", and the sensing unit in the fabric module is a load with a specific impedance or an adjustable impedance, so the load must directly connect with the at least two conductors. That is, the skilled person in the art can understand that the arrangement of the amended independent claim 1 including the limitation "the signal processing unit connected to one terminal of the at least two conductors, and the sensing unit connected to another terminal of the at least two conductors" are necessary for implementing the technical solution of the present application, but not merely a design choice.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, in p.7 of the instant Office action, it is clearly stated that the prior art teaches the processing unit, the at least two conductors, and the sensing unit are all connected. What’s being considered an obvious rearrangement of parts is the specific arrangement of the signal processing unit being connected to one terminal of the at least two conductors, and the sensing unit connected to another, meaning, when considering the term “terminal” being an end portion, whether the sensing unit and the processing unit each connects to different terminals (i.e., one at one end and the other at the other end), or both connect to the same terminal (i.e., both are on the same side), or some other arrangement (i.e., one at a terminal end and one at a non-terminal end), one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably not expect that any of these configurations would result in different outcome in regard to the function that the sensing unit and the processing unit are configured to perform.
For a particular configuration not to obviate merely a rearrangement of parts, the specification needs to disclose the criticality for such a configuration over the other. The claim recites that the sensing unit is configured to generate the feedback signal. The claim recites that the processing unit is configured to emit the RF signal and to process the feedback signals. If the specification discloses a criticality in regard to the particular configuration of two being positioned at two terminals of the conductors in order to perform the designated functions, such a configuration may not be considered being obvious merely a rearrangement of parts.
Remarks, p.15: Applicant asserted that the amended claim 1 has further introduced that the signal processing unit comprises an impedance adapter, a transceiver, an analog-to-digital converter, and a central processor for being the supporting structure of the signal processing unit to overcome the rejections relevant to 35 U.S.C. 112(a)(b). The applicant submits that neither Jin nor Xie, Pagani, and Mamandipoor has clearly disclosed these features of the amended independent claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, as considered in the rejection, Jin teaches the impedance adaptor (i.e., “modulate the response signals by changing an impedance), the transceiver (i.e., the antenna RF transponder), and the central processor (i.e., at least one processor in the reader device). Mamandipoor teaches the A/D converter. Jin, Xie, and Mamandipoor combined is considered providing proper and sufficient teaching to the claimed limitations of claims 1 and 7. Pagani is relied upon for th teaching of the characteristics of the conductors.
Based on the above considerations, claims 1-2, 4 and 7-8 and 10 remain rejected.
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 YI-SHAN YANG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pascal M Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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.
/YI-SHAN YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798