CTFR 18/727,734 CTFR 92122 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment The amendment of 03/03/2026 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner. Claims 1-3, and 6 have been amended. Claims 7 and 9-11 have been canceled. Claims 1-6, 8, and 12-18 are currently present in the application with claims 1 and 15 being independent. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03). Claim 1 is directed towards “an apparatus” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., product. Claim 15 is directed to a “method” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process. Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04). Prong One: Claims 1 and 15 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of a mental process, substantially as follows: , for each of a plurality of thicknesses of a cover part of the electronic device through which the transmission wave is transmitted, a magnitude-squared coherence between a reference vibration signal of a reference object and a detected vibration signal of the reference vibration signal detected by the electronic device at a predetermined distance from the reference object over a frequency range for detecting the vibration of the object at the predetermined distance from the electronic device; determining, for each of the plurality of thicknesses of the cover part, an average magnitude-squared coherence of the magnitude-squared coherence between the reference vibration signal and the detected vibration signal; and selecting, from among the average magnitude-squared coherence of the magnitude- squared coherence between the reference vibration signal and the detected vibration signal of the plurality of thicknesses of the cover part, a thickness of the cover part having a highest average magnitude-squared coherence. In claims 1and 15 , the above recited steps can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. there are the additional elements of a transmission antenna to transmit a transmission wave and a reception antenna to receive a reflected signal, and a cover part. However, these steps are recited at a high level of generality and only serve to provide pre/post/extra solutionary activity. Therefore, a person would be able to perform steps mentally or with a generic computer. Prong Two: Claims 1 and 15 do not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites (1) additional steps transmitting and receiving a time series signal; However, the steps in (1) represent merely data gathering or pre-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools (see below Step IIB for further details). solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality. As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea and to output a notification based on the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the estimated bio-information is not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05). Claims 1 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite additional steps transmitting a time series signal and receiving the reflected signal. These steps represents mere data gathering, data or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, these additional steps and tools for measuring a pulse wave signal and contact pressure, and outputting a notification amount to no more than insignificant conventional extra-solution activity. Mere insignificant conventional extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims hence are The not patent eligible. Dependent Claims The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons: Calculation of the detected vibration signal using an equation (claims 6,12, 13, 16 and 17) Determining the range of the calculation to a frequency range (claim 14 and 18) The following dependent claims merely further describe the extra-solution activities and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons: Detect the reflect signal and detecting a heart beat based on that (claim 2-3) Determination of the structure of cover part (claim 4, 8); Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Reasons for Allowance Claims 1-6, 8, and 12-18 are allowed over prior art. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter. Regarding claims 1 and 15, the prior art fails to anticipate and/or render obvious either solely or in combination, among other features of the claims: “the cover part is a thickness having a highest average magnitude-squared coherence of a magnitude-squared coherence between a reference vibration signal of a reference object and a detected vibration signal of the reference vibration signal detected by the electronic device at a predetermined distance from the reference object over a frequency range for detecting vibration of the object at the predetermined distance from the electronic device .” A comparison of the closest prior art of record with the claims is provided below: Murata et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0292686) hereinafter “Murata:” Murata which is considered the closest prior art to the set of claims discloses many features of the claims including an electronic device comprising a transmission antenna and a reception antenna and a cover part to cover the transmission and reception antenna and a processor configured to detect the reflected signal after transmission which is received via the cover part and further determine the thickness of the cover part based on signal analysis. However, Murata doesn’t disclose that the thickness is determined using magnitude square coherence by picking a thickness having a highest average magnitude-squared coherence of a magnitude-squared coherence between a reference vibration signal of a reference object and a detected vibration signal of the reference vibration signal detected by the electronic device at a predetermined distance from the reference object over a frequency range for detecting vibration of the object at the predetermined distance from the electronic device .” Raynal (“Radome effects on coherent change detection radara systems”) hereinafter “Raynal”: Raynal whch is directed towards optimization of parameters of a radome structure considering the coherent properties of the signal further discloses that using coherence analysis of the reflected signal to determine the designed thickness of the radome structure. However, Raynal also fails to disclose thickness having a highest average magnitude-squared coherence of a magnitude-squared coherence between a reference vibration signal of a reference object and a detected vibration signal of the reference vibration signal detected by the electronic device at a predetermined distance from the reference object over a frequency range for detecting vibration of the object at the predetermined distance from the electronic device .” 13-03 Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARJAN - SABOKTAKIN whose telephone number is (303)297-4278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-5pm CT. 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, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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. /MARJAN SABOKTAKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797 /MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795 Application/Control Number: 18/727,734 Page 2 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 18/727,734 Page 6 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 18/727,734 Page 7 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 18/727,734 Page 8 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 18/727,734 Page 9 Art Unit: 3797
Prosecution Insights