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 .
Examiner’s Note
For applicant’s benefit, portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, including disclosures that teach away from the claims. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including non-preferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005) See MPEP 2123.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 16 May, 2024 and 2 September, 2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 4 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “wherein the plurality of reception antenna arrays is arranged” which is objected to. It is suggested to be amended to “wherein the plurality of reception antenna arrays [[is]]are arranged”.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6, and 10-11 is/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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “the plurality of dimensions” which renders the claim indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis, such that the scope of the claim would not be reasonably ascertainable by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 6 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 5.
Claim 10 recites “the signal processor synthesizes the displacement of the subject detected by each of the three reception antenna arrays, in a coordinate system of three dimensions identical in number thereto” which renders the claim indefinite, because the scope of the claim could not be reasonably ascertainable by one of ordinary skill in the art. It is unclear how the number of reception antenna arrays is tied to the number of dimensions in the coordinate system.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the signal processor synthesizes the displacement of the subject detected by each of the plurality of reception antenna arrays, in a coordinate system of a plurality of dimensions identical in number thereto” which renders the claim indefinite, because the scope of the claim could not be reasonably ascertainable by one of ordinary skill in the art. It is unclear how the number of reception antenna arrays is tied to the number of dimensions in the coordinate system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, and 7-9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) are directed to a system and a method and recite(s) judicial exceptions as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis below. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application as explained in the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in the Step 2B analysis below.
Independent claim(s) 1, and 12-13:
Claim 1:
An electronic device, comprising: a transmission antenna configured to transmit a transmission wave; a plurality of reception antenna arrays each including a plurality of reception antennas each configured to receive a reflected wave, the reflected wave being the transmission wave having been reflected; and a signal processor configured to detect, based on a transmission signal transmitted as the transmission wave and a reception signal received as the reflected wave, displacement of a subject reflecting the transmission wave, wherein the plurality of reception antenna arrays is arranged in different orientations from one another, and the signal processor synthesizes the displacement of the subject detected by each of the plurality of reception antenna arrays.
Claim 12:
A method for controlling an electronic device, comprising: transmitting a transmission wave from a transmission antenna; receiving a reflected wave, the reflected wave being the transmission wave having been reflected, via a plurality of reception antenna arrays each including a plurality of reception antennas, the plurality of reception antenna arrays being arranged in different orientations from one another; detecting, based on a transmission signal transmitted as the transmission wave and a reception signal received as the reflected wave, displacement of a subject reflecting the transmission wave; and synthesizing the displacement of the subject detected by each of the plurality of reception antenna arrays.
Claim 13:
A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing computer program instructions, which when executed by an electronic device, cause the electronic device to: transmit a transmission wave from a transmission antenna; receive a reflected wave, the reflected wave being the transmission wave having been reflected, via a plurality of reception antenna arrays each including a plurality of reception antennas, the plurality of reception antenna arrays being arranged in different orientations from one another; detect, based on a transmission signal transmitted as the transmission wave and a reception signal received as the reflected wave, displacement of a subject reflecting the transmission wave; and synthesize the displacement of the subject detected by each of the plurality of reception antenna arrays.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claim 1 recites a device, and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. Claim 12 recites a series of steps and therefore, is a process. Claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and therefore, is a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Independent claim(s) 12-13 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain sufficiently the same limitations as those noted for claim 1 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes)?
Yes. Claim 1 recites “An electronic device, comprising: a transmission antenna configured to transmit a transmission wave; a plurality of reception antenna arrays each including a plurality of reception antennas each configured to receive a reflected wave, the reflected wave being the transmission wave having been reflected; and a signal processor configured to detect, based on a transmission signal transmitted as the transmission wave and a reception signal received as the reflected wave, displacement of a subject reflecting the transmission wave, wherein the plurality of reception antenna arrays is arranged in different orientations from one another, and the signal processor synthesizes the displacement of the subject detected by each of the plurality of reception antenna arrays”.
The focus of the claim (i.e., “a signal processor configured to detect, based on a transmission signal transmitted as the transmission wave and a reception signal received as the reflected wave, displacement of a subject reflecting the transmission wave” and “the signal processor synthesizes the displacement of the subject detected by each of the plurality of reception antenna arrays”) is on selecting certain information and analyzing it. These observations or evaluations are simply mathematical concepts (e.g., algorithms, spatial relationships, geometry). When given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the disclosure, “a signal processor configured to detect, based on a transmission signal transmitted as the transmission wave and a reception signal received as the reflected wave, displacement of a subject reflecting the transmission wave” and “the signal processor synthesizes the displacement of the subject detected by each of the plurality of reception antenna arrays” are simply selection and mathematical manipulation of data. Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from an abstract idea.
Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The additional limitation(s) of “a transmission antenna configured to transmit a transmission wave; a plurality of reception antenna arrays each including a plurality of reception antennas each configured to receive a reflected wave, the reflected wave being the transmission wave having been reflected; […] wherein the plurality of reception antenna arrays is arranged in different orientations from one another” are recited at a high level of generality. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions. The further limitation(s) are considered insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception. The limitation(s) of “transmission antenna; reception antenna arrays; signal processor” represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on generic devices, and can be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). The additional limitation(s) represent no more than mere attempt to recite a field in which the device is intended to be applied.
Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No.
Step 2 considers whether the claim provides limitations which amount to “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception. The claim as a whole does not provide any meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1.
The limitation(s) of “a transmission antenna configured to transmit a transmission wave; a plurality of reception antenna arrays each including a plurality of reception antennas each configured to receive a reflected wave, the reflected wave being the transmission wave having been reflected; […] wherein the plurality of reception antenna arrays is arranged in different orientations from one another” are recited in a manner that is well understood, generic and conventional. The additional recitation(s) do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation(s) are at a high level of generality and are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The limitation(s) are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim as a whole does not provide meaningful limitations which amount to significantly more than the mathematical concept of claim 1 and does not state an inventive concept. The limitation(s) are just a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Looking at the elements as a combination does not add anything more than the elements analyzed individually.
Applicant’s disclosure does not provide evidence that the additional element(s) recited in claim 1 (i.e., the claim element(s) in addition to the abstract idea) is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This issue is explained by the Federal Circuit, as follows:
It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention “significantly more” than that ineligible concept. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that claims directed to a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating settlement risks claimed a patent-ineligible abstract idea. 134 S.Ct. at 2352, 2355—56. Some of the claims at issue covered computer systems configured to mitigate risks through various financial transactions. Id. After determining that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, the Court considered whether the recitation of a generic computer added “significantly more” to the claims. Id. at 2357. Critically, the Court did not consider whether it was well-understood, routine, and conventional to execute the claimed intermediated settlement method on a generic computer. Instead, the Court only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional. Id. at 2359-60. BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (2018) (emphases added).
Therefore, independent claim(s) 1, and 12-13 are ineligible.
Claims 7-9:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. Claims 7-9 recite a device, and therefore, fall under a machine/ manufacture. As such, the claim(s) are directed to one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter, and are eligible for further analysis. Claim(s) 8-9 will not be evaluated separately because the claim(s) contain the same or sufficiently similar defects as those noted for claim 7 below.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim is directed to the device of claim 1 which recites a mathematical concept (see analysis above). Merely selecting information for collection and analysis does nothing significant to differentiate a process from the abstract idea.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim is considered an insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The additional limitation(s) merely are used to perform the abstract idea. The claimed limitations are recited at a high level of generality, and are merely invoked as tools of performing generic functions.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claim fails to impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception other than what would be considered well understood, routine and conventional. The limitation therefore remains insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and does not amount to significantly more. The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract.
Therefore, dependent claim(s) 7-9 are ineligible.
Therefore, when considering the combination of elements and the claimed invention as a whole, claims 1, and 7-9, and 12-13 are not patent-eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alland et al. (US 2018/0149736 A1 “ALLAND”), in view of Yuen et al. (US 2010/0130873 A1 “YUEN”).
Regarding claim 1, ALLAND discloses (Examiner’s note: What ALLAND does not disclose is ) an electronic device, comprising:
a transmission antenna configured to transmit a transmission wave (the multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) configuration illustrated in FIG. 5A incorporates 3 transmit antenna elements 510 and N receive antenna elements 520, 530 [0053])
a plurality of reception antenna arrays each including a plurality of reception antennas each configured to receive a reflected wave, the reflected wave being the transmission wave having been reflected (the multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) configuration illustrated in FIG. 5A incorporates 3 transmit antenna elements 510 and N receive antenna elements 520, 530 [0053])
and a signal processor configured to detect, based on a transmission signal transmitted as the transmission wave and a reception signal received as the reflected wave, detection and identification of individual objects [0040])
wherein the plurality of reception antenna arrays is arranged in different orientations from one another (the antenna elements 510, 520, 530 are placed in a manner that minimizes the physical size of an antenna board needed to synthesize virtual uniform linear receive arrays in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions. The key design features include two uniform linear arrays of receive antennas, one being composed of NH antennas disposed horizontally (520) and the other being composed of NV antennas disposed vertically (530) [0053])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, YUEN relates to a radar-based physiological motion sensor and a method of sensing motion using a motion sensor. The method includes generating electromagnetic radiation in the radio frequency range, transmitting the electromagnetic radiation towards a subject using one or more transmitters, receiving a radiation scattered at least by the subject using one or more receivers. Specifically, YUEN teaches that referring to FIGS. 11D and 11E, reference numeral 1101 of FIG. 11D illustrates a motion signal (e.g., chest displacement signal). The multi-path based complex signals are shown in plots identified by 1102. The summed multi-path signal is shown in plot 1103 of FIG. 11E. Plot 1104 shows the demodulation signal which is approximately linear indicating absence of abnormal breathing (e.g., paradoxical breathing) [0237].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ALLAND to include the teachings of YUEN, because doing so would provide physiological parameter(s) to be used to synchronize ventilation or medical imaging with respiratory and/or cardiac motion, and improve contactless monitoring of patients during medical assessment, as recognized by YUEN. In addition, both of the prior art references, ALLAND and YUEN, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, radar sensing for object identification and analysis.
Regarding claim 2, ALLAND/ YUEN discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of reception antenna arrays is arranged in such a manner that each direction orthogonal to a direction in which the plurality of reception antennas is arranged in each of the plurality of reception antenna arrays is different from those of others of the plurality of reception antenna arrays (the antenna elements 510, 520, 530 are placed in a manner that minimizes the physical size of an antenna board needed to synthesize virtual uniform linear receive arrays in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions. The key design features include two uniform linear arrays of receive antennas, one being composed of NH antennas disposed horizontally (520) and the other being composed of NV antennas disposed vertically (530) [ALLAND 0053], cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, ALLAND discloses a method for controlling an electronic device, comprising:
transmitting a transmission wave from a transmission antenna (the multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) configuration illustrated in FIG. 5A incorporates 3 transmit antenna elements 510 and N receive antenna elements 520, 530 [0053])
receiving a reflected wave, the reflected wave being the transmission wave having been reflected, via a plurality of reception antenna arrays each including a plurality of reception antennas (the multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) configuration illustrated in FIG. 5A incorporates 3 transmit antenna elements 510 and N receive antenna elements 520, 530 [0053]), the plurality of reception antenna arrays being arranged in different orientations from one another (the antenna elements 510, 520, 530 are placed in a manner that minimizes the physical size of an antenna board needed to synthesize virtual uniform linear receive arrays in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions. The key design features include two uniform linear arrays of receive antennas, one being composed of NH antennas disposed horizontally (520) and the other being composed of NV antennas disposed vertically (530) [0053])
detecting, based on a transmission signal transmitted as the transmission wave and a reception signal received as the reflected wave, detection and identification of individual objects [0040])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, YUEN teaches that referring to FIGS. 11D and 11E, reference numeral 1101 of FIG. 11D illustrates a motion signal (e.g., chest displacement signal). The multi-path based complex signals are shown in plots identified by 1102. The summed multi-path signal is shown in plot 1103 of FIG. 11E. Plot 1104 shows the demodulation signal which is approximately linear indicating absence of abnormal breathing (e.g., paradoxical breathing) [0237].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ALLAND to include the teachings of YUEN, because doing so would provide physiological parameter(s) to be used to synchronize ventilation or medical imaging with respiratory and/or cardiac motion, and improve contactless monitoring of patients during medical assessment, as recognized by YUEN.
Regarding claim 13, ALLAND discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing computer program instructions, which when executed by an electronic device, cause the electronic device to execute:
transmit a transmission wave from a transmission antenna (the multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) configuration illustrated in FIG. 5A incorporates 3 transmit antenna elements 510 and N receive antenna elements 520, 530 [0053])
receive a reflected wave, the reflected wave being the transmission wave having been reflected, via a plurality of reception antenna arrays each including a plurality of reception antennas (the multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) configuration illustrated in FIG. 5A incorporates 3 transmit antenna elements 510 and N receive antenna elements 520, 530 [0053]), the plurality of reception antenna arrays being arranged in different orientations from one another (the antenna elements 510, 520, 530 are placed in a manner that minimizes the physical size of an antenna board needed to synthesize virtual uniform linear receive arrays in both the horizontal and vertical dimensions. The key design features include two uniform linear arrays of receive antennas, one being composed of NH antennas disposed horizontally (520) and the other being composed of NV antennas disposed vertically (530) [0053])
detect, based on a transmission signal transmitted as the transmission wave and a reception signal received as the reflected wave, detection and identification of individual objects [0040])
In a same or similar field of endeavor, YUEN teaches that referring to FIGS. 11D and 11E, reference numeral 1101 of FIG. 11D illustrates a motion signal (e.g., chest displacement signal). The multi-path based complex signals are shown in plots identified by 1102. The summed multi-path signal is shown in plot 1103 of FIG. 11E. Plot 1104 shows the demodulation signal which is approximately linear indicating absence of abnormal breathing (e.g., paradoxical breathing) [0237].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ALLAND to include the teachings of YUEN, because doing so would provide physiological parameter(s) to be used to synchronize ventilation or medical imaging with respiratory and/or cardiac motion, and improve contactless monitoring of patients during medical assessment, as recognized by YUEN.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALLAND, in view of YUEN, and further in view of Lindalv et al. (US 2014/0168003 A1 “LINDALV”).
Regarding claim 3, ALLAND/ YUEN discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of reception antenna arrays is each configured as a plane antenna (the MIMO antennas can be implemented using well known antenna structures and fabrication techniques, including multi-layer printed circuit board antennas with, for example, microstrip feed lines and patch radiators, substrate integrated waveguide (SIW) feed lines and SIW slotted radiators, coplanar waveguide feed lines with SIW slotted radiators, or suitable combinations thereof [ALLAND 0059]),
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LINDALV relates to an antenna arrangement for a radar system arranged for coverage of a surveillance area and comprising antenna elements. Specifically, LINDALV teaches the line array comprising at least two antenna elements [0040]. Furthermore, LINDALV teaches that a first 601, a second 602 and a third 603 line array located in space as if they were located along edges of a tetraeder [0056 & FIG. 6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ALLAND to include the teachings of LINDALV, because doing so would improve coverage of the target, as recognized by LINDALV. In addition, both of the prior art references, ALLAND and LINDALV, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, array arrangement for coverage of target area.
Regarding claim 4, ALLAND/ YUEN discloses the electronic device according to claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, LINDALV teaches the line array comprising at least two antenna elements [0040]. Furthermore, LINDALV teaches that a first 601, a second 602 and a third 603 line array located in space as if they were located along edges of a tetraeder [0056 & FIG. 6].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ALLAND to include the teachings of LINDALV, because doing so would improve coverage of the target, as recognized by LINDALV.
Claim(s) 5, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALLAND, in view of YUEN, and further in view of Clark et al. (US 2016/0103214 A1 “CLARK”).
Regarding claim 5, ALLAND/ YUEN discloses the electronic device according to claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CLARK teaches that the system receives data from at least one sensor, and is converted to a common coordinate system [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ALLAND to include the teachings of CLARK, because in fusion tracking systems, it is necessary to convert the coordinate system of the sensors to a central coordinate system, and would improve accuracy based on geometric diversity, as recognized by CLARK. In addition, both of the prior art references, ALLAND and CLARK, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, system for target identification and tracking.
Regarding claim 10, ALLAND/ YUEN discloses the electronic device according to claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CLARK teaches that the system receives data from at least one sensor, and is converted to a common coordinate system [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ALLAND to include the teachings of CLARK, because in fusion tracking systems, it is necessary to convert the coordinate system of the sensors to a central coordinate system, and would improve accuracy based on geometric diversity, as recognized by CLARK.
Regarding claim 11, ALLAND/ YUEN discloses the electronic device according to claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, CLARK teaches that the system receives data from at least one sensor, and is converted to a common coordinate system [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ALLAND to include the teachings of CLARK, because in fusion tracking systems, it is necessary to convert the coordinate system of the sensors to a central coordinate system, and would improve accuracy based on geometric diversity, as recognized by CLARK.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALLAND, in view of YUEN and CLARK, and further in view of Fowler et al. (US 5,764,192 A “FOWLER”).
Regarding claim 6, ALLAND/ YUEN/ CLARK discloses the electronic device according to claim 5,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, FOWLER teaches that a standard Euler angle transformation is performed to rotate the antenna plane AOA estimates into the vehicle azimuth plane 12 and elevation plane 13 [col. 4, lines 23-25].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ALLAND to include the teachings of FOWLER, because doing so would improve measurement accuracy and reliability, as recognized by FOWLER. In addition, both of the prior art references, ALLAND and FOWLER, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, antenna array.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ALLAND, in view of YUEN, and further in view of Patole et al. (US 2016/0054438 A1 “PATOLE”).
Regarding claim 7, ALLAND/ YUEN discloses the electronic device according to claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, PATOLE teaches that vibration monitoring and analysis is an important tool for the early detection of faults in many different target systems. For example, in motors, a bearing vibration may indicate a crack in the inner or outer ring of the motor. Vibrations in a bridge or building may indicate that structural integrity is compromised. Movement of a human chest may be utilized to generate estimates of respiration and heart rates. Therefore, it would be desirable to design a non-contact based system, such as a FMCW radar system, that is able to accurately determine vibration parameters of the system [0018].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ALLAND to include the teachings of PATOLE, because doing so would enable early detections of target abnormalities, as recognized by PATOLE. In addition, both of the prior art references, ALLAND and PATOLE, teach features that are directed to analogous art and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, that is, contactless monitoring of target.
Regarding claim 8, ALLAND/ YUEN discloses the electronic device according to claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, PATOLE teaches that vibration monitoring and analysis is an important tool for the early detection of faults in many different target systems. For example, in motors, a bearing vibration may indicate a crack in the inner or outer ring of the motor. Vibrations in a bridge or building may indicate that structural integrity is compromised. Movement of a human chest may be utilized to generate estimates of respiration and heart rates. Therefore, it would be desirable to design a non-contact based system, such as a FMCW radar system, that is able to accurately determine vibration parameters of the system [0018].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ALLAND to include the teachings of PATOLE, because doing so would enable early detections of target abnormalities, as recognized by PATOLE.
Regarding claim 9, ALLAND/ YUEN discloses the electronic device according to claim 1,
In a same or similar field of endeavor, PATOLE teaches that vibration monitoring and analysis is an important tool for the early detection of faults in many different target systems. For example, in motors, a bearing vibration may indicate a crack in the inner or outer ring of the motor. Vibrations in a bridge or building may indicate that structural integrity is compromised. Movement of a human chest may be utilized to generate estimates of respiration and heart rates. Therefore, it would be desirable to design a non-contact based system, such as a FMCW radar system, that is able to accurately determine vibration parameters of the system [0018].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of ALLAND to include the teachings of PATOLE, because doing so would enable early detections of target abnormalities, as recognized by PATOLE.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sumi (US 2015/0112185 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure overall, and in particular the details of the displacement measurement method including the steps of: (a) yielding ultrasound echo data frames by scanning an object laterally or elevationally using an ultrasound beam steered electrically and/or mechanically with a single steering angle over an arbitrary three-dimensional orthogonal coordinate system involving existence of three axes of a depth direction, a lateral direction, and an elevational direction; and (b) calculating a displacement vector distribution by implementing a block matching on the predetermined ultrasound echo data frames yielded at more than two phases.
Mulder et al. (US 2013/0135137 A1) is considered pertinent art for the disclosure of means for measuring vital signs such as heart rate, breathing rate, pulse forms, that allow accurate and unobtrusive signal acquisition and that are automatically adjusted to varying positions of an area of interest within a pre-determined area, a device, a system and a method for measuring vital signs are provided, wherein electromagnetic signals such as microwave or radar are emitted and reflected electromagnetic signals are sensed with directional sensitivity by a transceiving unit and wherein a direction of interest is determined based on the sensed reflected signals and a primary direction of sensitivity (300) of the transceiving unit is adjusted to the direction of interest by a control unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAILEY R LE whose telephone number is (571)272-4910. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, WILLIAM J KELLEHER can be reached at (571) 272-7753. 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.
/Hailey R Le/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 February 5, 2026