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 .
Interview Summary
Examiner contacted applicant representative Christopher Bezak on 09/09/2026 to determine which set of claims were to be examined. It was confirmed by the representative that the claim set of 02/15/2024 is to be examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “A electronic device” in line 1. This should be corrected to ---An electronic device---. 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 1-15 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 1 recites “Fourier transform in a range and velocity direction”. It is not understood what is done by this. Fourier transform is signal processing performed on signals in time domain or frequency domain. There is no relation to direction, which usually refers to vectors. Examiner interprets as ---FFT is performed on signal related to range and velocity---. Examiner further suggests amending with features of Fourier transform related to a range-doppler plane, similar to claim 2.
Claims 2-15 recite or encompass similar limitations and are rejected for same reaons as above.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhong [US 20210093203 A1].
As per claim 1, Zhong teaches an electronic device, comprising:
a transmission antenna configured to transmit a transmission wave; a reception antenna configured to receive a reflected wave, the reflected wave being the transmission wave having been reflected (Zhong ¶0004 “Radar uses operating principle in which, when radio energy (a short pulse) is emitted from a directional antenna and collides against a target object, waves are reflected, that is, part of the energy returns” ¶0052 “One of the ways in which vital signs may be monitored wirelessly is by using radar technology. … source of reflection arriving at the radar antenna”,); and
a signal processor (Zhong Fig 1 item 114) configured to detect, based on a transmission signal transmitted as the transmission wave and a reception signal received as the reflected wave, oscillations arising from a heartbeat of a subject that reflects the transmission wave (Zhong Fig 2 transmitted signals / oscillations, ¶0057 “The signal at the receiver may be represented as a delayed version of transmitted signal given by relation (2)” ),
wherein based on oscillation velocity obtained (Zhong Fig 5, step 504, ¶0076 “a Kalman filter may be employed on the signal, which models the velocity of the waveform change…”) through oscillation component removal except for an oscillation component lying at a desired position (Zhong Fig 5, step 504, ¶0077 “a band-pass filter may be employed to remove any unwanted frequencies … may be designed to filter out any frequencies outside of the 0.15 Hz to 2 Hz range” i.e. oscillation components in a position between 0.15 and 2 Hz is desired) from a result of performing a fast Fourier transform in a range direction and a velocity direction on the reception signal (examiner interprets FFT is performed on signal related to range and velocity. Zhong ¶0059 “applying a Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) on the mixed signal. Specifically, to determine vital signs, fb provides the distance between the subject and the radar and is used to determine the range bins (reflecting distance) of the test subjects while ϕb reflects the velocity and/or displacement of the subject's chest” Hence FFT in on a signal related to range / velocity), the signal processor calculates the heartbeat of the subject (Zhong Fig 5 item 508).
As per claim 6, Zhong further teaches wherein the signal processor performs processing to denoise a time-series waveform by using an empirical Bayes method or a wavelet method (Zhong Fig item 506, ¶0083 “CNN works well for identifying simple patterns within data (which may then be used to form more complex patterns within higher layers). A 1D CNN is effective for deriving noteworthy features from shorter (fixed-length) segments of the overall data set… a Short-Time Fourier Transform or a Wavelet Transform may have to be applied to the input waveform”).
As per claim 14 it is directed to method of claim 1 and is rejected for same reasons as above.
As per claim 15, it has limitation similar to claim 14 and is rejected for same reasons as above. Zhong further recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing computer program instructions (Zhong ¶0014 “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon”)
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 2-3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Regev [US 20190183352 A1].
As per claims 2-3, Zhong further teaches wherein the signal processor extracts a region where the subject is present by using a predetermined window function wherein the signal processor extracts the region where the subject is present by using, as the predetermined window function, at least one selected from the group consisting of a hanning window, a hamming window, and a Blackman-Harris window (Zhong ¶0063 “Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) may be performed on the signal, where a Hanning window”)
Zhong does not expressly teach using a predetermined window function on a range-Doppler plane calculated by performing the fast Fourier transform in the range direction and the velocity direction on the reception signal.
Regev, in a similar field of monitoring vital signs, teaches using a predetermined window function (Regev ¶0058 “each of the plurality of bins, all intensity values in the plurality of distance-cleaned readings associated with the bin's distances by a window function”) on a range-Doppler plane calculated by performing the fast Fourier transform in the range direction and the velocity direction on the reception signal (Regev ¶0061 “here the matrix of values is a Range-Doppler map, the computing platform applies FFT 411 to each of the plurality of filtered readings, and combines the results to produce 412 a Range-Doppler map”, ¶0063 “least one peak frequency is a multiple of a velocity of the subject's thorax with a predetermined scalar”).
As per MPEP 2143.I. example of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In the instant case, the claim is only directed to use known method of utilizing range-doppler maps to generate matrices representing one or more waveforms, for digital processing including FFT. Each value in such a Range-Doppler map represents an intensity value detected by the transceiver at the respective distance from the transceiver at the respective frequency. The modification would have yielded the predictable result of providing a computing platform that identifies at least one peak frequency in the Range-Doppler map, and performs spectral estimation of heartbeats.
Claim 4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boric-Lubecke [US 20080074307 A1].
As per claim 4, Zhong does not expressly teach wherein the signal processor extracts an element of the oscillations as cardiac sound of the subject by performing singular value decomposition on the result of performing the fast Fourier transform in the range direction and the velocity direction on the reception signal, or wherein the signal processor extracts an element of the oscillations as cardiac sound of the subject by performing principal component analysis of the result of performing the fast Fourier transform in the range direction and the velocity direction on the reception signal.
Boric-Lubecke, in a related field of radar for detection of physiological motion teaches wherein the signal processor extracts an element of the oscillations as cardiac sound of the subject by performing singular value decomposition, or wherein the signal processor extracts an element of the oscillations as cardiac sound of the subject by performing principal component analysis (Boric-Lubecke ¶0234 “a singular value decomposition (SVD) combination may be used to combine channel data to extract physiological motion (e.g., heartbeat signals). The resulting signal may include the principle component of heartbeat signal, with maximal output SNR among all I and Q channels.” Principle component analysis and SVD).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system in Zhong, by integrating mathematical analysis as in Boric-Lubecke so as to perform physiological motion like heartbeat signals and distinguish subjects based on that information (Boric-Lubecke ¶0004, ¶0233).
Claims 7-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of de Voir [US 20080109041 A1].
As per claim 7-10, Zhong does not expressly teach wherein the signal processor extracts a waveform of cardiac sound of the subject by using a discrete wavelet method, wherein the signal processor performs multi-resolution analysis based on a discrete wavelet transform by using a wavelet waveform similar to a waveform of the cardiac sound of the subject, wherein based on a scalogram obtained through a continuous wavelet transform, the signal processor obtains an envelope waveform of the cardiac sound of the subject, wherein the signal processor obtains the envelope waveform of the cardiac sound of the subject by identifying a first cardiac sound and a second cardiac sound of the subject.
de Voir, in a related field of cardiac signal processing teaches wherein the signal processor extracts a waveform of cardiac sound of the subject by using a discrete wavelet method (de Voir ¶0236 “The Wavelet Transform (WT) itself generates a series of time-shifted spectra… All the values within a sub-band are at the same scaling of the wavelet at different time offsets. .. the discrete wavelet transform is limited to the time resolution (fs=512 Hz) of the input signal”), wherein the signal processor performs multi-resolution analysis based on a discrete wavelet transform by using a wavelet waveform similar to a waveform of the cardiac sound of the subject (de Voir Fig 4. ¶0176 “Signal preprocessing includes detection of R-waves or p-waves. This kind of detection also is called "event detection" … The wavelet transformation stage simultaneously generates scaling or smoothing coefficients that are used for recursive calculation of further detail coefficients. … The comparator compares these selected wavelet coefficients to threshold values stored in the threshold memory” implies using WT coefficients corresponding to cardiac events. ¶0232 “the time resolution varies (inversely) with the number of samples spanned in the WT” varying resolution means multiresolution), wherein based on a scalogram obtained through a continuous wavelet transform, the signal processor obtains an envelope waveform of the cardiac sound of the subject (de Voir Fig 25), wherein the signal processor obtains the envelope waveform of the cardiac sound of the subject by identifying a first cardiac sound and a second cardiac sound of the subject (de Voir Fig 4. ¶0176 “Signal preprocessing includes detection of R-waves or p-waves).
As per MPEP 2143.I. example of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In the instant case, he claim is only directed to apply known signal processing method of cardiac signals as in de Voir, including features of wavelet transformation and scalogram for cardiac signal feature extraction. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Zhong by applying signal processing techniques of de Voir so as to achieve the predictable results of classification of cardiac waveforms for rhythms classification (de Voir ¶0003)
As per claim 11, Zhong in view of de Voir does not expressly wherein the signal processor obtains the envelope waveform of the cardiac sound of the subject by identifying two first cardiac sounds adjacent to each other included in the cardiac sound of the subject,. However, this is an obvious modification since de Voir uses p-wave and q-wave, a person of ordinary skill would have selected other waves adjacent to each other as well (from PQRST waveform or other waveforms). This modification only requires choosing of waveforms and wavelet coefficients corresponding to them.
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horikawa [US 20180064397 A1].
As per claim 12, Zhong does not expressly teach wherein the signal processor corrects an interval in the heartbeat of the subject by using a Bayes' estimation method.
Horikawa in a related field of monitoring of health conditions device, teaches wherein the signal processor corrects an interval in the heartbeat of the subject by using a Bayes' estimation method (Horikawa Fig 16, ¶0203 “a normal value is estimated by use of Bayes' theorem, … after executing a process of estimating a correct value for heartbeat interval data sequentially acquired and added”).
As per MPEP 2143.I. example of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In the instant case, he claim is only directed to apply known signal processing for connecting data portions. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Zhong by applying signal processing techniques of Horikawa so as to achieve the predictable results of removing discontinuity and loss in cardiac signals (Horikawa ¶0189-¶0196).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OOMMEN JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-5166. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/Oommen Jacob/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights