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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 19, line 7 recites “responds respond”. One of the responds needs to be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 26, line 9 recites “determing determine”. One of the determines needs to be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 31, line 4 recites “causses”. One of the determines needs to be deleted. Appropriate correction is 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 11-13, 20, 26, 39-40, and 43-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rappaport (US 20200025911).
Regarding claim 1, Rappaport teaches an apparatus (fig 1, item 105) comprising: a communication circuit, wherein the communication circuit is arranged to receive a communication signal from a remote communication device (fig 1); a detection circuit, wherein the detection circuit is arranged to detect sensing signal based on sensing parameter information, wherein the sensing parameter information comprises the communication signal (para 47, “When implemented as part of a smart phone or pocket communicator, the preferred implementation, the device can use, for example, frequencies that are the same, similar or different than commercial wireless frequencies used for cellphone or Wi-Fi or ultrawideband, or Bluetooth communication”); an analysis system wherein the analysis system is arranged to determine a change of the sensing signal (para 64, “ the measured variations in received signal responses as a function of angle and frequency, especially when considered with measured physical response such as time of flight, and particular signal level changes as a function of frequency and angle”), wherein the change is selected from the group consisting of a timing, phase shift, frequency, amplitude or deformation (para 64, “ the measured variations in received signal responses as a function of angle and frequency, especially when considered with measured physical response such as time of flight, and particular signal level changes as a function of frequency and angle”), the analysis system is arranged to determine if the sensing signal is reflected by a target objector is sent via a direct non-reflected path based on the change of the sensing signal (para 73, “The reflecting obstructions can then be distinguished from the target NLOS object to be “viewed” by taking advantage of the fine temporal resolution at mmWave and sub-THz frequencies to create a 3-D map of the local environment. (See, e.g., References 13, 19 and 20). The 3-D maps can be utilized (e.g., in conjugation with angle of departure (“AoD”) from the known BSs and ToF measurements) to calculate, back-solve or estimate the actual paths that the multipath components take to reach the user.”)
Regarding claim 2, Rappaport teaches the sensing signal is selected from the group consisting of a radar signal, or a chirp signal, or a training symbol of a channel state information (para 63, “Using exemplary array processing, with controllable 2-D or 3-D antenna array beam steering, it can be possible to launch a transmitted signal, either narrowband, wideband, or sweeping/chirp signal, that can facilitate transmitted signal function to be launched in a particular direction. The response from the launched signal can contain the convolution of the launched signal with the response of the channel”).
Regarding claim 5, Rappaport teaches the sensing parameter information is selected from the group consisting of timing, phase and frequency information, an identification of an algorithm, an identification of a filter an application identifier, a sensing signal identifier of the sensing signal or a sensing profile identifier (para 64, “ the received signal responses, such as received amplitude or power, phase, true time of flight, relative time delay between signals in a received signal response”)
Regarding claim 6, Rappaport teaches a signal generator circuit, wherein the signal generator circuit is arranged to generate a synthetic sensing signal based on the sensing parameter information or an auxiliary signal, wherein the analysis system is arranged to combine the synthetic sensing signal with the sensing signa l (para 98, “Simulations of localization using MAP-AT were conducted at 73 GHz by synthesizing ToF and AoD measurements at 30 TR combinations via NYURay, of which 20 were in NLOS and 10 were in LOS“).
Regarding claim 11, Rappaport teaches at least one movement sensor wherein the at least one movement sensor is arranged to measure movements and/or vibrations of the communication device (para 50).
Regarding claim 12, Rappaport teaches the measured movements and/or vibrations of the communication device are communicated to the remote communication device (para 50).
Regarding claim 13, Rappaport teaches a lower-resolution non-distributed analysis system wherein the non-distributed analysis system is arranged to provide a non-distributed location scanning capability (para 51 and 52).
Regarding claim 20, Rappaport teaches the remote communication device is arranged to determine the sensing parameter information, wherein the sensing parameter information a signal to be used as the sensing signal, a rough position of the target object and a position offset from the remote communication device to the wireless communication device (para 11), wherein the remote communication device is arranged to transmit the sensing parameter information and a future time for a first sensing signal to the communication device (para 65).
Regarding claim 26, Rappaport teaches a method comprising: receiving a communication signal from a remote device detecting a sensing signal based on sensing parameter information, wherein the sensing parameter information comprises the received communication signal; determining determine a change of the sensing signal, wherein the change is selected from the group consisting of a timing, phase shift, frequency, amplitude or deformation; and determining if the sensing signal is reflected by a target object or is sent via a direct non-reflected path based on the change of the sensing signal. (fig 1 and para 47, 64, and 73).
Regarding claim 39, Rappaport teaches an apparatus comprising: a communication circuit, wherein the communication circuit is arranged to receive a communication signal from a remote communication device; a detection circuit, wherein the detection circuit is arranged to detect a sensing signal at the output of the reception frontend based on sensing parameter information, wherein the sensing parameter information comprises the communication signal (fig 1, para 47, 64, and 73); an analysis system wherein the analysis system is arranged to generate a filtered signal bases on the sensing signal (para 57) wherein the analysis system is arranged to provide the filtered signal to a second processing circuit, wherein the second processing circuit is arranged to extract sensing information about a target object (fig 1, para 47, 64, and 73).
Regarding claim 40, Rappaport teaches an apparatus comprising: a communication circuit, wherein the communication circuit is arranged to receive a communication signal from a remote communication device; a detection circuit, wherein the detection circuit is arranged to detect a sensing signal at the output of the reception front end based on sensing parameter information, wherein the sensing parameter information comprises the communication signal; an analysis system wherein the analysis system is arranged to determine a position, a movement or a structure of a target object based on the sensing signal (fig 1, para 47, 64, and 73).
Regarding claim 43, Rappaport teaches method comprising: receiving a communication signal from a remote device; detecting a sensing signal based on sensing parameter information, wherein the sensing parameter information comprises the received communication signal; determining determine a change of the sensing signal, wherein the change is selected from the group consisting of a timing, phase shift, frequency, amplitude or deformation; and providing a filtered signal a second processing circuit, wherein the second processing circuit is arranged to extract sensing information about a target object (fig 1, para 47, 64, and 73).
Regarding claim 44, Rappaport teaches a method comprising: receiving a communication signal from a remote device; detecting a sensing signal based on sensing parameter information, wherein the sensing parameter information comprises the received communication signal; determining determine a change of the sensing signal, wherein the change is selected from the group consisting of a timing, phase shift, frequency, amplitude or deformation; and determining a position, a movement or a structure of a target object (fig 1, para 47, 64, and 73).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappaport as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fujii et al (JP 2003109155).
Regarding claim 3, Fujii teaches the apparatus is arranged to use the communication circuit, to transmit a sensing measurement request to the remote communication device so as to receive at least one of sensing parameter information, resource allocation information for sensing or a location of the remote communication device (“reporting apparatus is activated by a victim (HA) an object detector (14) monitors the suspected person (HB) in the zone of the reporting apparatus using the stored images.”). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include the apparatus is arranged to use the communication circuit, to transmit a sensing measurement request to the remote communication device so as to receive at least one of sensing parameter information, resource allocation information for sensing or a location of the remote communication device because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to initial a area scan of Rappaport with the method to initiate a area scan of Fujii to yield a predictable area scanning device.
Regarding claim 4, Fujii teaches the apparatus is arranged to use the communication circuit to transmit at least one of a required scan time for sensing measurement (“the report input time are image-processed to approach the reporter identified by the reporter identification means from among the moving objects detected by the moving object detection means. A target object detection means for detecting a moving object as a target object that is a candidate for a suspect, and a time-series”). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include the apparatus is arranged to use the communication circuit to transmit at least one of a required scan time for sensing measurement because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to initial an area scan of Rappaport with the
Regarding claim 4, Rappaport teaches a location or area of the target object or an indication of a location or area of the communication device or an indication of a direction and range between the communication device and the remote communication device to the remote communication device (para 43
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappaport as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sahin et al (US 20210111938).
Regarding claim 7, Sahin teaches the signal generator circuit is arranged to use a discrete Fourier transform spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing signal generation process to generate a chirp signal as the synthetic sensing signal, wherein the synthetic sensing signal matches sensing parameter information (para 69). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include the signal generator circuit is arranged to use a discrete Fourier transform spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing signal generation process to generate a chirp signal as the synthetic sensing signal, wherein the synthetic sensing signal matches sensing parameter information because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to produce a signal of Rappaport with the method to produce a signal of Sahin to yield a predictable signal generator.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappaport as applied to claim 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Chang et al (US 20220299628).
Regarding claim 8, Chang teaches the analysis system is arranged to generate an intermediate frequency signal by combining the synthetic sensing signal with the sensing signal, wherein the analysis system is arranged to convert the intermediate frequency signal so as to obtain a digital intermediate frequency signal, and wherein the analysis system is arranged to process the digital intermediate frequency signal to yield position, movement or structure data (fig 5). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include the analysis system is arranged to generate an intermediate frequency signal by combining the synthetic sensing signal with the sensing signal, wherein the analysis system is arranged to convert the intermediate frequency signal so as to obtain a digital intermediate frequency signal, and wherein the analysis system is arranged to process the digital intermediate frequency signal to yield position, movement or structure data be it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to process a signal to detect object of Chang in the system of Rappaport to yield a predictable object detection system.
Regarding claim 9, Chang teaches the analysis system is arranged to detect a location and/or movement of the target object based on an isolated surface derived from a constant line detected in the digital intermediate frequency signal, wherein the analysis system is arranged to detect a heart rate and breathing rate based on isolated and unwrapped phase data of a selected surface derived from a constant line detected in the digital intermediate frequency signal, Rappaport to include the analysis system is arranged to detect a location and/or movement of the target object based on an isolated surface derived from a constant line detected in the digital intermediate frequency signal, wherein the analysis system is arranged to detect a heart rate and breathing rate based on isolated and unwrapped phase data of a selected surface derived from a constant line detected in the digital intermediate frequency signal because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to process a signal to detect object of Chang in the system of Rappaport to yield a predictable object detection system.
Regarding claim 41, Chang teaches the analysis system is arranged to generate an intermediate frequency signal by combining the synthetic sensing signal with the sensing signal, wherein the analysis system is arranged to convert the intermediate frequency signal SO as to obtain a digital intermediate frequency signal, wherein the analysis system is arranged to transmit the digital intermediate frequency signal to the remote communication device (para 18 and 30). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include the analysis system is arranged to generate an intermediate frequency signal by combining the synthetic sensing signal with the sensing signal, wherein the analysis system is arranged to convert the intermediate frequency signal SO as to obtain a digital intermediate frequency signal, wherein the analysis system is arranged to transmit the digital intermediate frequency signal to the remote communication device because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to process a signal to detect object of Chang in the system of Rappaport to yield a predictable object detection system.
Claim(s) 10, 23-24, and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappaport as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Szilagyi (US 20220095152).
Regarding claim 10, Szilagyi teaches the apparatus is arranged to provide a time delay measurement by using the communication circuit, to perform a two-way time delay measurement in cooperation with the remote communication device (para 77). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include the apparatus is arranged to provide a time delay measurement by using the communication circuit, to perform a two-way time delay measurement in cooperation with the remote communication device because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to determine the distance of a communication device of Szilagyi in the object detection device of Rappaport to yield a predictable object detection device.
Regarding claim 23, Szilagyi teaches the remote communication device is arranged to use a communication circuit to perform a two-way time delay measurement (para 37 and 77). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include the remote communication device is arranged to use a communication circuit to perform a two-way time delay measurement because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to determine the distance of a communication device of Szilagyi in the object detection device of Rappaport to yield a predictable object detection device.
Regarding claim 24, Szilagyi teaches a clock-level synchronization between the remote communication device and the communication device is achieved by a time synchronization and delay compensation measurement process using communication signals (para 37 and 77). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include a clock-level synchronization between the remote communication device and the communication device is achieved by a time synchronization and delay compensation measurement process using communication signals because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to determine the distance of a communication device of Szilagyi in the object detection device of Rappaport to yield a predictable object detection device.
Regarding claim 42, Szilagyi teaches the remote communication device is arranged to use a non-distributed radar operation to perform sensing of the communication device, wherein the remote communication device is arranged to calculate a time delay based on the sensing results of the non-distributed radar operation, wherein the remote communication device is arranged to transmit the calculated time delay to the wireless communication device (para 37 and 77). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include the remote communication device is arranged to use a non-distributed radar operation to perform sensing of the communication device, wherein the remote communication device is arranged to calculate a time delay based on the sensing results of the non-distributed radar operation, wherein the remote communication device is arranged to transmit the calculated time delay to the wireless communication device because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to determine the distance of a communication device of Szilagyi in the object detection device of Rappaport to yield a predictable object detection device.
Claim(s) 14 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappaport as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saito (US 20220260697).
Regarding claim 14, Saitto teaches the analysis system is arranged to detect a spatial location of a surface of the target object by finding intersections of equal-distance return ellipses of receiver devices of the sensing signal and constraining the position by a direction angle and beam spread angle of a transmitter beam of the remote communication device (para 245). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include the analysis system is arranged to detect a spatial location of a surface of the target object by finding intersections of equal-distance return ellipses of receiver devices of the sensing signal and constraining the position by a direction angle and beam spread angle of a transmitter beam of the remote communication device because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to determine the location of an object of Saito in the object location device of Rappaport to yield a predictable object location device.
Regarding claim 22, Saitto teaches the remote communication device is arranged to determine a target angle and a distance to the target object by using a location estimation sensing operation of a non-distributed sensing system (para 245). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include the remote communication device is arranged to determine a target angle and a distance to the target object by using a location estimation sensing operation of a non-distributed sensing system because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to determine the location of an object of Saito in the object location device of Rappaport to yield a predictable object location device.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappaport as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rivera et al (US 11059457).
Regarding claim 15, Rivera teaches the analysis system is arranged to a first detection, wherein the first detection detects that the sensing information about a target object or the determined position, a movement or a structure of a target object does not correspond to the given information on how to identify the target, wherein the apparatus discards the sensing signal or sensing information, and/or not perform any further processing on the measurements, results and/or input/output data, and/or not transmit to a further processing circuit based on the first detection (col 4, lines 1-14). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include the analysis system is arranged to a first detection, wherein the first detection detects that the sensing information about a target object or the determined position, a movement or a structure of a target object does not correspond to the given information on how to identify the target, wherein the apparatus discards the sensing signal or sensing information, and/or not perform any further processing on the measurements, results and/or input/output data, and/or not transmit to a further processing circuit based on the first detection because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to determine the location of an object of Rivera in the object location device of Rappaport to yield a predictable object location device.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappaport as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chang et al (US 20220299628) and Rivera et al (US 11059457
Regarding claim 16, Chang teaches the analysis system is arranged to detect a biometric based on the sensing information about a target object and/or the determined position, a movement or a structure of a target object (para 18 and 30). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include the analysis system is arranged to detect a biometric based on the sensing information about a target object and/or the determined position, a movement or a structure of a target object because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to process a signal to detect object of Chang in the system of Rappaport to yield a predictable object detection system.
Regarding claim 16, Rivera et al (US 11059457). Rivera teaches the sensing session may be continued or aborted or the sensing information may be approved for further processing/storage or discarded, or a different target object or different communication device or different remote communication device may be selected based on the biometric (col 4, lines 1-14). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include the sensing session may be continued or aborted or the sensing information may be approved for further processing/storage or discarded, or a different target object or different communication device or different remote communication device may be selected based on the biometric because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to determine the use of an object data of Rivera in the object location device of Rappaport to yield a predictable object location device.
Claim(s) 19 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappaport as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US 10271351).
Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches the remote communication device is arranged to determine if it can respond to a sensing measurement request wherein the remote communication device responds respond a sensing session confirmation or a sensing session denial message based on the change of the sensing signal (col 5, line 57 to col 6, line 22). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include the remote communication device is arranged to determine if it can respond to a sensing measurement request wherein the remote communication device responds respond a sensing session confirmation or a sensing session denial message based on the change of the sensing signal because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to initial an area scan of Rappaport with the method to initiate an area scan of Wang to yield a predictable area scanning device.
Regarding claim 27, Rappaport teaches computer program stored on a non-transitory medium, wherein the computer program when executed on a processor performs the method as claimed in claim 19 (para 8).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappaport as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Sahin et al (US 20210111938).
Regarding claim 21, Sahin teaches the remote communication device is arranged to transmit the sensing signal at the communicated future time using a discrete Fourier transform spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing signal generation process wherein the remote communication devices is arranged to generate the sensing signal by converting a single-carrier discrete Fourier transform spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing signal to a linear combination of sensing signals circularly translated in the time domain (para 69). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include the remote communication device is arranged to transmit the sensing signal at the communicated future time using a discrete Fourier transform spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing signal generation process wherein the remote communication devices is arranged to generate the sensing signal by converting a single-carrier discrete Fourier transform spread orthogonal frequency division multiplexing signal to a linear combination of sensing signals circularly translated in the time domain because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to produce a signal of Rappaport with the method to produce a signal of Sahin to yield a predictable signal generator.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappaport as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Tsvekykh et al (US 20210080580).
Regarding claim 25, Tsvekykh teaches the communication device is arranged to transmit to the remote communication device a resource scheduling message requesting scheduling of sensing session resources, and wherein the remote communication device replies to the communication device with a downlink control information message including the allocated resources (abstract). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include the communication device is arranged to transmit to the remote communication device a resource scheduling message requesting scheduling of sensing session resources, and wherein the remote communication device replies to the communication device with a downlink control information message including the allocated resources because it would reduce the amount of interference between the mobile devices.
Claim(s) 28-29, 31-33, and 35-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappaport in view of Fujii et al (JP 2003109155).
Regarding claim 28, Rappaport teaches an apparatus comprising: a communication circuit, wherein the communication circuit comprises a transmitter and a receiver; and a controller circuit, wherein the controller circuit is arranged to control the communication circuit (fig 1 and para 47, 64, and 73),
Regarding claim 28, Fujii et al (JP 2003109155). Fujii teaches the controller circuit, is arranged for performing a sensing session upon reception of a request for sensing a target (“reporting apparatus is activated by a victim (HA) an object detector (14) monitors the suspected person (HB) in the zone of the reporting apparatus using the stored images.”). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include the controller circuit, is arranged for performing a sensing session upon reception of a request for sensing a target because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to initial an area scan of Rappaport with the method to initiate an area scan of Fujii to yield a predictable area scanning device.
Regarding claim 29, Fujii teaches the request comprises configuration parameters, wherein the configuration parameters are chosen from the group consisting of authorization information, or target information, context information an identifier or a credential or a target position, movement or vital signs, wherein the target information comprises target location, target area, target volume or target situation (“reporting apparatus is activated by a victim (HA) an object detector (14) monitors the suspected person (HB) in the zone of the reporting apparatus using the stored images.”), Rappaport to include the controller circuit, is arranged for performing a sensing session upon reception of a request for sensing a target because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to initial an area scan of Rappaport with the method to initiate an area scan of Fujii to yield a predictable area scanning device.
Regarding claim 31, Fujii teaches the controller circuit, is arranged to initiate an emergency call, wherein the emergency call causses causing the network node to request the sensing session (“reporting apparatus is activated by a victim (HA) an object detector (14) monitors the suspected person (HB) in the zone of the reporting apparatus using the stored images.”). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include the controller circuit, is arranged to initiate an emergency call, wherein the emergency call causses causing the network node to request the sensing session because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to initial an area scan of Rappaport with the method to initiate an area scan of Fujii to yield a predictable area scanning device.
Regarding claim 32, Fujii teaches the emergency call comprises location information (“reporting apparatus is activated by a victim (HA) an object detector (14) monitors the suspected person (HB) in the zone of the reporting apparatus using the stored images.”). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include the emergency call comprises location information because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to initial an area scan of Rappaport with the method to initiate an area scan of Fujii to yield a predictable area scanning device.
Regarding claim 33, Fujii teaches emergency call comprises sensing results (“reporting apparatus is activated by a victim (HA) an object detector (14) monitors the suspected person (HB) in the zone of the reporting apparatus using the stored images.”). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include emergency call comprises sensing results because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to initial an area scan of Rappaport with the method to initiate an area scan of Fujii to yield a predictable area scanning device.
Regarding claim 35, Rappaport teaches a network node in a communication network, comprising a communication circuit, wherein the communication circuit comprises a transmitter and a receiver; and a controller circuit, wherein the controller circuit is arranged to control the communication circuit (fig 1, para 47, 64, and 73)
Regarding claim 35, Fujii teaches the controller circuit, is arranged to request at least one sensing devices located in the vicinity of a first device to perform a sensing session of a designated target upon reception of an emergency call from the first device (“reporting apparatus is activated by a victim (HA) an object detector (14) monitors the suspected person (HB) in the zone of the reporting apparatus using the stored images.”). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include the controller circuit, is arranged for performing a sensing session upon reception of a request for sensing a target because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to initial an area scan of Rappaport with the method to initiate an area scan of Fujii to yield a predictable area scanning device.
Regarding claim 36, Fujii teaches method comprising: receiving a sensing request for a designated target victim in the vicinity of an apparatus (col 2); and performing a sensing session based on the request (col 5, lines 3-35). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include method comprising: receiving a sensing request for a designated target victim in the vicinity of an apparatus (col 2); and performing a sensing session based on the request because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to initial an area scan of Rappaport with the method to initiate an area scan of Fujii to yield a predictable area scanning device.
Regarding claim 37, Fujii teaches a method comprising: receiving an emergency call from a first device; and requesting at least one sensing wireless devices located in the vicinity of the first device to perform a sensing session of a designated target victim (col 5, lines 3-35). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport to include a method comprising: receiving an emergency call from a first device; and requesting at least one sensing wireless devices located in the vicinity of the first device to perform a sensing session of a designated target victim because it is merely a substitution of a well-known method to initial an area scan of Rappaport with the method to initiate an area scan of Fujii to yield a predictable area scanning device.
Regarding claim 38, Rappaport teaches computer program stored on a non-transitory medium, wherein the computer program when executed on a processor performs the method as claimed in claim 37 (para 8).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rappaport in view of Fujii as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Luo et al (US 20210223376).
Regarding claim 34, Lou teaches the controller circuit, is arranged to provide the apparatus sensing capabilities and/or an indication that sensing results are available or can be acquired (para 122). It would have been obvious to modify Rappaport in view of Fujii to include the controller circuit, is arranged to provide the apparatus sensing capabilities and/or an indication that sensing results are available or can be acquired because it would allow the operator to request information if needed to.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY A BRAINARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.
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 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.
TIMOTHY A. BRAINARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3648
/TIMOTHY A BRAINARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights