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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US PUB 2020/0217882), hereinafter Lee.
With respect to claim 1, George discloses an electronic device, comprising: a sensor (See paragraph [0045] of Lee) configured to generate sensor measurements (See paragraph [0045] of Lee); a transmitter configured to transmit radio-frequency signals (See paragraph [0053] of Lee); and a digital filter configured to generate a signal in response to detecting electromagnetic interference in the sensor measurements (See paragraph [0067] in view of paragraphs [0056] and [0066] of Lee).
With respect to claim 3, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the digital filter comprises a digital persistence filter, the electronic device further comprising: a comparator between the sensor and the digital filter (See paragraph [0067] in view of paragraphs [0126] and [0130] of Lee).
With respect to claim 4, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the digital persistence filter comprises an up-counter that is configured to be reset to a given value (See paragraphs [0078] and [0090] of Lee) and to be clocked at a given frame rate (See paragraph [0109] of Lee).
With respect to claim 5, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 4, wherein the up-counter is configured to be reset to the given value when the sensor measurements are below a threshold (See paragraph [0078] of Lee).
With respect to claim 6, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 5, wherein the up-counter is configured to be incrementally increased at the given frame rate when the sensor measurements are above the threshold (See paragraph [0099], in view of paragraphs [0109], [0134] and [0141] of Lee).
With respect to claim 13, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the digital filter is configured to receive the sensor measurements directly (See figure 3A of Lee which shows direct connection from the sensor measurements emitted from [340] to digital filter [352]).
With respect to claim 14, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 13, wherein the digital filter is configured to compare the sensor measurements to time-delayed sensor measurements to determine whether there is electromagnetic interference in the sensor measurements (See paragraphs [0111] and [0126] in view of paragraph [0067] of Lee).
With respect to claim 15, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 14, wherein the digital filter is configured to generate the signal in response to a difference between the sensor measurements and the time-delayed sensor measurements being greater than a threshold (See paragraph [0067] in view of paragraph [0132] of Lee).
With respect to claim 16, Lee discloses an apparatus, comprising: a sensor (See paragraph [0045] of Lee) configured to generate sensor measurements (See paragraph [0045] of Lee); a comparator configured to output an indicator in response to each of the sensor measurements (See paragraphs [0111] and [0126] in view of paragraph [0067] of Lee); and a digital filter configured to determine, based on the respective indicator, whether there is electromagnetic interference in each of the sensor measurements (See paragraph [0067] in view of paragraphs [0056] and [0066] of Lee).
With respect to claim 17, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the digital filter comprises a digital persistence filter (See paragraph [0067] in view of paragraphs [0126] and [0130] of Lee).
With respect to claim 18, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 16, wherein the sensor is selected from the group consisting of: a temperature sensor, an accelerometer, a gyroscope, an ambient light sensor, a humidity sensor, a heart rate sensor, and a blood oxygen sensor (See paragraph [0045] of Lee).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Yamauchi (US PUB 2006/0077080).
With respect to claim 12, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 3, but fails to disclose further comprising: a hysteresis circuit coupled between an output of the comparator and an input of the comparator. However, Yamauchi does disclose a hysteresis circuit coupled between an output of the comparator and an input of the comparator (See paragraphs [0109] and [0110] of Yamauchi in view of the arrangement of circuit elements disposed in section [70] in figure 4 of Yamauchi). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Lee to include the features disclosed by Yamauchi because doing so ensures enhanced detection accuracy.
Claim(s) 2,19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Baloniak (US PUB 2020/0072646).
With respect to claim 2, Lee discloses the electronic device of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising: control circuitry configured to discard the sensor measurements in response to the signal from the digital filter. However, Baloniak does disclose control circuitry configured to discard the sensor measurements in response to the signal from the digital filter (See paragraph [0044] of Baloniak). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Lee to include the features disclosed by Baloniak because doing so increases the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), thus improving system accuracy.
With respect to claim 19, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 16, but fails to disclose further comprising: control circuitry that is configured to discard given sensor measurements in response to the digital filter determining that the given sensor measurements have been subject to electromagnetic interference. However, Baloniak does disclose a control step that is configured to discard given sensor measurements in response to the digital filter determining that the given sensor measurements have been subject to electromagnetic interference (See paragraph [0044] of Baloniak). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Lee to include the features disclosed by Baloniak because doing so increases the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), thus improving system accuracy.
With respect to claim 20, Lee discloses an electronic device, comprising: a transmitter configured to transmit radio-frequency signals (See paragraph [0053] of Lee); a circuit (See paragraph [0043] of Lee), comprising: a sensor configured to generate sensor measurements (See paragraph [0067] in view of paragraphs [0056] and [0066] of Lee); and a digital persistence filter configured to generate a signal in response to detecting electromagnetic interference in the sensor measurements (See paragraph [0067] in view of paragraphs [0126] and [0130] of Lee); but fails to disclose control circuitry configured to disregard given sensor measurements in response to the signal. However, Baloniak does disclose control circuitry configured to disregard given sensor measurements in response to the signal (See paragraph [0044] of Baloniak). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device disclosed by Lee to include the features disclosed by Baloniak because doing so increases the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), thus improving system accuracy.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 7, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements wherein the up-counter is configured to overflow when the sensor measurements are above the threshold for a period of time longer than the given value divided by the given frame rate.
Claim 8 depends from objected to claim 7 and is therefore also objected to.
With respect to claim 9, the prior art of record neither shows nor suggests the combination of structural elements wherein the sensor is configured to generate the sensor measurements at a given burst rate, and wherein the digital persistence filter comprises a marked-frame counter that is configured to be reset to a given value and to be clocked at a given frame rate.
Claims 10 and 11 depend from objected to claim 9 and are therefore also objected to.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TEMILADE S RHODES-VIVOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-5814. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (flex schedule).
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/TEMILADE S RHODES-VIVOUR/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858