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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “observation determination unit configured to…” in claims 1, 6, 8, 10, “fall determination unit configured to…” in claims 1, 11, 14, and “peak signal derivation unit configured to…” in claims 2, 3, 5
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 12 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.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “while shifting…” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear over what time window the RMS is derived. Instant application specification [0098] states that RMS power is computed “within each window while shifting the set window (windowing).” It is unclear how the RMS power can be computed within a window while the window is changing (e.g., the start and end of the windows do not appear to be defined). It is unclear, e.g., whether the RMS power is computed in the window prior to shifting, or in the shifted window.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 11, 13, 14-15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 7916066 B1 to Osterweil.
Regarding claim 1, Osterweil teaches:
A fall detection device of detecting a fall using a radar signal, comprising:
a transceiver configured to transmit a radar signal toward a subject and receive a radar signal reflected from the subject; (Fig. 6; [col. 13, lines 5-20] – UWB radar application… The cluster is represented by one transmitter 400 and two receivers 400a and 400b, each at a distance d from the transmitter 400. It is understood that the receiver's and/or transmitter's locations are represented by their respective antennae locations. For example, the receiver antenna and the receiver front-end are collocated whereas the rest of the receiver hardware is collocated with the transmitter.)
an observation determination unit configured to determine whether or not to enter an observation state of the subject by analyzing the received radar signal; ([col. 11, lines 7-45] – UWB radar processing in conjunction with the distance of a valid Doppler signal from the radar as observed by the cluster determine the location of a beating heart and/or breathing lungs within the monitored volume of interest… A UWB cluster is constantly processing the Doppler signal in a volume occupied by a subject; otherwise in the absence of a subject, the cluster records a static signal signature and periodically looks for changes in radar return signals (signatures)… During the standby mode, the clusters periodically obtain the signature of the reflected signal and compare it to a previously recorded signature. If the new signature differs from the recorded one, an attempt to identify the presence of a subject is triggered. If a subject is present monitoring continues, otherwise the new signature is recorded for future reference and is stored in place of the previously recorded signature. Non-standby mode corresponds to observation state. Determination to exit / remain in / enter standby mode corresponds to determination whether or not to enter observation state.) and
a fall determination unit configured to derive a range value between the transceiver and the subject in the observation state and determine whether the subject has fallen based on the range value. (Fig. 4, 11; [col. 12, lines 19-29] – UWB radar is employed to capture a vertical distance from a floor 310 relative to a threshold 330 of a subject, such as, but not limited to, for example, an individual. In the embodiment of FIG. 1, the sensor 100 perceives the threshold 330 in terms of its distance to the subject as a function of a viewing angle… An algorithm for detecting fall condition determines a fall when the radar does not detect the subject's (upper torso) heart/lungs above their respective thresholds while at least one of the radars detects the presence the subject. Following this algorithm, subject 350 is determined to be fallen whereas the other subjects 352, 354, and 356 are not determined as falls.)
Regarding claim 6, Osterweil discloses the invention of claim 1, and further discloses:
wherein the observation determination unit derives a movement peak signal relevant to a movement of the subject from the radar signal, analyzes a pattern of movement peak signals, and determines whether or not to enter the observation state based on a result of pattern analysis. ([col. 11, lines 7-45] – UWB radar processing in conjunction with the distance of a valid Doppler signal from the radar as observed by the cluster determine the location of a beating heart and/or breathing lungs within the monitored volume of interest… A UWB cluster is constantly processing the Doppler signal in a volume occupied by a subject; otherwise in the absence of a subject, the cluster records a static signal signature and periodically looks for changes in radar return signals (signatures)… During the standby mode, the clusters periodically obtain the signature of the reflected signal and compare it to a previously recorded signature. If the new signature differs from the recorded one, an attempt to identify the presence of a subject is triggered. If a subject is present monitoring continues, otherwise the new signature is recorded for future reference and is stored in place of the previously recorded signature. Non-standby mode corresponds to observation state. Determination to exit / remain in / enter standby mode corresponds to determination whether or not to enter observation state.)
Regarding claim 11, Osterweil discloses the invention of claim 1, and further discloses:
wherein the fall determination unit derives a range value between the transceiver and the subject in the observation state, derives a fall range depending on a height of a space equipped with the transceiver, and determines whether the subject has fallen based on the range value and the fall range. (Figs. 4, 11; [col. 12, lines 20-30] – a radar device 100 mounted on ceiling 320, such as, but not limited to, an UWB radar, is employed to capture a vertical distance from a floor 310 relative to a threshold 330 of a subject, such as, but not limited to, for example, an individual. In the embodiment of FIG. 1, the sensor 100 perceives the threshold 330 in terms of its distance to the subject as a function of a viewing angle... [col. 15, lines 5-25, 60-65] – The true vertical distance h of the subject 350 from the ceiling also provides the subject's proximity to the floor based on the height of the room… FIG. 13 shows the relationship of the two above mentioned ellipses and the vertical distance h which is based on the height of the cluster transmitter 600 above ground and determines the position of the upper torso 350 relative the floor.)
Regarding claim 13, Osterweil discloses the invention of claim 11, and further discloses:
wherein the fall range refers to a range between a far distance threshold point corresponding to a distance from the radar to a floor of the space and a near distance threshold point corresponding to a position spaced apart by a predetermined distance from the far distance threshold point toward the radar. (Figs. 4, 11; [col. 12, lines 20-30] – a radar device 100 mounted on ceiling 320, such as, but not limited to, an UWB radar, is employed to capture a vertical distance from a floor 310 relative to a threshold 330 of a subject, such as, but not limited to, for example, an individual. In the embodiment of FIG. 1, the sensor 100 perceives the threshold 330 in terms of its distance to the subject as a function of a viewing angle... [col. 15, lines 5-25, 60-65] – The true vertical distance h of the subject 350 from the ceiling also provides the subject's proximity to the floor based on the height of the room… FIG. 13 shows the relationship of the two above mentioned ellipses and the vertical distance h which is based on the height of the cluster transmitter 600 above ground and determines the position of the upper torso 350 relative the floor. See also rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112.)
Regarding claim 14, Osterweil discloses the invention of claim 11 and further discloses:
wherein the fall determination unit determines presence or absence of a fall when the range value is lower than a presence threshold point or higher than an absence threshold point, (Fig. 4, 11; [col. 12] – UWB radar, is employed to capture a vertical distance from a floor 310 relative to a threshold 330 of a subject, such as, but not limited to, for example, an individual. In the embodiment of FIG. 1, the sensor 100 perceives the threshold 330 in terms of its distance to the subject as a function of a viewing angle… An algorithm for detecting fall condition determines a fall when the radar does not detect the subject's (upper torso) heart/lungs above their respective thresholds while at least one of the radars detects the presence the subject. Following this algorithm, subject 350 is determined to be fallen whereas the other subjects 352, 354, and 356 are not determined as falls. Examiner notes that determination of presence and determination of absence are listed in the alternative and only one is required by the claim.) and the presence threshold point is derived based on the range value derived when the subject is present in the space, and the absence threshold point is derived based on the range value derived when the subject is not present in the space. ([col. 11, lines 7-45] – UWB radar processing in conjunction with the distance of a valid Doppler signal from the radar as observed by the cluster determine the location of a beating heart and/or breathing lungs within the monitored volume of interest… A UWB cluster is constantly processing the Doppler signal in a volume occupied by a subject; otherwise in the absence of a subject, the cluster records a static signal signature and periodically looks for changes in radar return signals (signatures)… During the standby mode, the clusters periodically obtain the signature of the reflected signal and compare it to a previously recorded signature. If the new signature differs from the recorded one, an attempt to identify the presence of a subject is triggered. If a subject is present monitoring continues, otherwise the new signature is recorded for future reference and is stored in place of the previously recorded signature.
Regarding claim(s) 15 and 20,
Claim(s) 15, 20 is/are claims corresponding to claim(s) 1. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 15, 20 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 1.
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) 2-3, 5, 7, 16-17, 19 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7916066 B1 to Osterweil in view of US 20190339376 A1 to Levy-Israel.
Regarding claim 2, Osterweil discloses the invention of claim 1, and further discloses:
a peak signal derivation unit configured (lined through limitations correspond to limitations not taught by reference) filtering the radar signal. ([col. 4, lines 24-29] – radar units are distributed throughout the monitored area detect the presence of a subject by signal processing, including Doppler analysis such as filtering)
Osterweil does not appear to specifically disclose:
a peak signal derivation unit configured to derive a peak signal by filtering the radar signal.
However, Levy-Israel teaches:
a peak signal derivation unit configured to derive a peak signal by filtering the radar signal. ([0004] – generating a range-Doppler energy map and determining a positive energy detection for a peak of the range-Doppler map that exceeds an energy threshold. Filtering corresponds to filtering for RD peaks above threshold.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Levy-Israel’s known technique to Osterweil known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Osterweil teaches a base method of radar detection using analysis of Doppler measurements; (2) Levy-Israel teaches a specific thresholding of a range-Doppler map for detection determination; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 3, Osterweil discloses the invention of claim 2, and further discloses:
wherein the peak signal derivation unit generates ([col. 4, lines 24-29] – radar units are distributed throughout the monitored area detect the presence of a subject by signal processing, including Doppler analysis such as filtering)
Osterweil does not appear to specifically disclose:
the peak signal derivation unit generates range-Doppler map information based on the radar signal and derives the peak signal by filtering the range-Doppler map information.
However, Levy-Israel teaches:
the peak signal derivation unit generates range-Doppler map information based on the radar signal and derives the peak signal by filtering the range-Doppler map information. ([0004] – generating a range-Doppler energy map and determining a positive energy detection for a peak of the range-Doppler map that exceeds an energy threshold. Filtering corresponds to filtering for RD peaks above threshold.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Levy-Israel’s known technique to Osterweil known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Osterweil teaches a base method of radar detection using analysis of Doppler measurements; (2) Levy-Israel teaches a specific thresholding of a range-Doppler map for detection determination; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 5, Osterweil discloses the invention of claim 3, but does not appear to specifically disclose the additional elements of claim 5.
However, Levy-Israel further teaches:
wherein the peak signal derivation unit removes noise from the range-Doppler map ([0035-36] – In order to reduce the effects of noise, it is possible to sum the signal so that the variation caused by noise is reflected as a change in sign, thereby causing noise signals to cancel each other out.) and derives a signal with an intensity ([0038] – The beamforming energy map generator 604 receives a steering matrix 624 and produces an Energy Map 626 for the Range-Doppler signal by associating an intensity of a signal with a range and velocity.) equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value as the peak signal. ([0004] – generating a range-Doppler energy map and determining a positive energy detection for a peak of the range-Doppler map that exceeds an energy threshold. Filtering corresponds to filtering for RD peaks above threshold.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Levy-Israel’s known technique to Osterweil known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Osterweil teaches a base method of radar detection using analysis of Doppler measurements; (2) Levy-Israel teaches a specific thresholding of a range-Doppler map for detection determination; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 7, Osterweil discloses the invention of claim 6, but does not appear to specifically disclose the additional elements of claim 7.
However, Levy-Israel teaches:
wherein the movement peak signal is derived by filtering at least a part of a Doppler bin region of the radar signal or based on a distribution of the radar signal. ([0004] – generating a range-Doppler energy map and determining a positive energy detection for a peak of the range-Doppler map that exceeds an energy threshold.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Levy-Israel’s known technique to Osterweil known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Osterweil teaches a base method of radar detection using analysis of Doppler measurements; (2) Levy-Israel teaches a specific thresholding of a range-Doppler map for detection determination; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim(s) 16-17, 19,
Claim(s) 16-17, 19 is/are claims corresponding to claim(s) 2-3, 5. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 16-17, 19 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 2-3, 5.
Claim(s) 4 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7916066 B1 to Osterweil in view of US 20190339376 A1 to Levy-Israel and further in view of US 20240134006 A1 to Tang.
Regarding claim 4, Osterweil in view of Levy-Israel discloses the invention of claim 3, but does not appear to specifically disclose the additional elements of claim 4.
However, Tang teaches:
wherein the range-Doppler map information is generated for each frame corresponding to a time point when the radar signal is received. ([0030-32] – performing signal processing on the multi-channel echo signals of the adjacent frames respectively to obtain multi-channel range-Doppler two-dimensional data of the first frame and the second frame; [0031] detecting the first target by searching for a peak in the multi-channel range-Doppler two-dimensional data of the first frame; and [0032] detecting the second target by searching for a peak in multi-channel range-Doppler two-dimensional data of the second frame. [0083] – In S02, the above signal processing is performed on the continuous frames of the multi-channel echo signals of the MIMO sensor, and multi-channel range-Doppler two-dimensional data may respectively be obtained for each frame of the echo signals.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Tang’s known technique to Osterweil known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Osterweil teaches a base method of radar detection using analysis of Doppler measurements; (2) Tang teaches a specific range-Doppler technique for detection determination; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim(s) 18,
Claim(s) 18 is/are claims corresponding to claim(s) 4. Accordingly, the Examiner’s remarks and application of the prior art with respect to claim(s) 18 are substantially the same as those made above with respect to claim(s) 4.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7916066 B1 to Osterweil in view of US 20100283668 A1 to Bruyere.
Regarding claim 8, Osterweil discloses the invention of claim 6, but does not appear to specifically disclose the additional elements of claim 8.
However, Bruyere teaches:
The fall detection device of Claim 6, wherein the observation determination unit derives range indexes of movement peak signals over time and derives a trend line depending on a variance in range index to analyze a pattern of the movement peak signals. ([0040] – at step 124, a variance is calculated for each range-doppler matrix (RDM) pixel over an RDM matrix. The RDM matrix is a two dimensional m.times.n array of received radar returns indexed by range in one dimension and Doppler in the other dimension, where m and n are integers indicating the size of a window used to calculate localized variance within a scene. [claim 4] – performing a rate of change of variance calculation includes means for calculating a rate of change of variance over an N.times.M window within said range/Doppler matrix.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Bruyere’s known technique to Osterweil known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Osterweil teaches a base method of radar detection using analysis of Doppler measurements; (2) Bruyere teaches a specific Doppler analysis for detection determination; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7916066 B1 to Osterweil in view of US 20100283668 A1 to Bruyere and further in view of US 20100271615 A1 to Sebastian.
Regarding claim 9, Osterweil in view of Bruyere discloses the invention of claim 8, but does not appear to specifically disclose the additional elements of claim 9.
However, Sebastian teaches:
wherein the trend line is derived from the variance in range index by applying a least square method. ([0111] –measurements from lidar subsystem 130 of range, Doppler velocity, azimuth, elevation and time for at each of the N points are input to a least squares estimator 1110 of processing system 160)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Sebastian’s known technique to Osterweil known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Osterweil teaches a base method of radar detection using analysis of Doppler measurements; (2) Sebastian teaches a specific Doppler analysis for detection determination; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7916066 B1 to Osterweil in view of US 20100283668 A1 to Bruyere and further in view of US 20230288568 A1 to Heo.
Regarding claim 10, Osterweil in view of Bruyere discloses the invention of claim 8, but does not appear to specifically disclose the additional elements of claim 5.
However, Heo teaches:
The fall detection device of Claim 8, wherein the observation determination unit determines to enter the observation state when a slope of the trend line is equal to or higher than a predetermined value. ([0084] – the system 100 may determine a second object as a static object when a variance value of cells corresponding to the second object is greater than the second predetermined threshold, and determine the second object as a dynamic object when the variance value of the cells corresponding to the second object is equal to or less than the second predetermined threshold.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Heo’s known technique to Osterweil’s known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Osterweil teaches a base method of radar detection using analysis of Doppler measurements; (2) Heo teaches a specific Doppler analysis for detection determination; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 7916066 B1 to Osterweil in view of US 20190339376 A1 to Levy-Israel and further in view of US 20110273964 A1 to Agranat.
Regarding claim 12, Osterweil in view of Levy-Israel discloses the invention of claim 11, and Levy-Israel further discloses:
wherein the range value is obtained by filtering a signal corresponding to a movement of the subject from the radar signal ([0004] – generating a range-Doppler energy map and determining a positive energy detection for a peak of the range-Doppler map that exceeds an energy threshold. Filtering corresponds to filtering for RD peaks above threshold.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Levy-Israel’s known technique to Osterweil known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Osterweil teaches a base method of radar detection using analysis of Doppler measurements; (2) Levy-Israel teaches a specific thresholding of a range-Doppler map for detection determination; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Osterweil in view of Levy-Israel does not appear to specifically disclose:
deriving a root mean square (RMS) power derived from the filtered signal while shifting a window corresponding to a time domain
However, Agranat teaches:
deriving a root mean square (RMS) power derived from the filtered signal while shifting a window corresponding to a time domain. ([0018] – In one embodiment, 2.times.N samples are buffered at a time. A rolling window of N/D samples can be used to measure the root-mean-squared power levels of ultrasonic sounds present. For each new input sample, the power level of the rolling window is updated by adding the contribution of the new sample while subtracting the contribution of the sample which had been added N/D samples earlier. The maximum value and corresponding window position is tracked for N samples. After N samples, the window position corresponding to the maximum power level is used to choose the N/D output samples. This process is repeated for each frame of N samples. See also rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Agranat’s known technique to Osterweil known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Such a finding is proper because (1) Osterweil teaches a base method of radar detection using analysis of Doppler measurements; (2) Agranat teaches a specific technique for measuring and comparing across windows for window selection; (3) one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system; and (4) no additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness (See MPEP 2143).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIANA CROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-8721. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5pm Pacific time.
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, Resha Desai can be reached on (571) 270-7792. 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.
/JULIANA CROSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights