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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 06/26/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in this application. Claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 14, and 16 have been amended. No claims have been cancelled or are new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/26/2026 regarding prior art rejections of claims 1-10 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1 as currently claimed includes multiple contingent limitations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].
Claim 1 as currently claimed includes a case where the device is not within a distance of the second device, where the distance is defined by a threshold range defined to enable a transmitter of the first device and receiver of the second device to perform pseudo-monostatic RF sensing. The Examiner notes that a sensing request rejection of Nam, is a determination of not being in the mode because a distance, defined by being within a threshold range to enable a transmitter of the first device and a receiver of the second device to perform pseudo-monostatic RF, is not met. Therefore, the teachings of Nam disclose all required limitations of method claim 1. The detailed prior art rejections of amended claim 1 and its dependents are presented below.
The same or similar arguments are applied to all dependent claims of independent claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/26/2026 regarding prior art rejections of claims 11-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. All previous prior art rejections of claims 11-20 are overcome in consideration of amendments.
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)(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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nam (US 20220236394 A1), hereinafter Nam.
Regarding claim 1, Nam discloses a computer-implemented method for multi-device sensing at a first device in a wireless network, the method comprising:
determining, by the first device, whether the first device operates in a mode in which the first device and a second device coordinate to simultaneously transmit and receive radio frequency (RF) signals and the first device is within a distance of the second device (See at least Figs. 11-15, [0163] “Referring to FIGS. 12-13, in some designs, the response to the bistatic sensing request at 1210 or 1310 may include an indication of a location of the respective wireless node that transmits the response to the bistatic sensing request, an indication of acceptance or rejection of the bistatic sensing request” Nam discloses a bistatic system (simultaneous transmit/receive) where a first wireless node (first device) receives a positive acceptance or rejection (determination) of bistatic initiation.), wherein the distance is within a threshold range defined to enable a transmitter of the first device and a receiver of the second device to perform pseudo-monostatic RF sensing (The Examiner further notes the recited "wherein the distance is within a threshold range" in “wherein the distance is within a threshold range defined to enable a transmitter of the first device and a receiver of the second device to perform pseudo-monostatic RF sensing” does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted " enable a transmitter of the first device and a receiver of the second device to perform pseudo-monostatic RF sensing"step not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].);
in response to a determination that the first device is not within the distance of the second device, determining that the first device and the second device are not in the mode (Figs. 11-15, [0163] “Referring to FIGS. 12-13, in some designs, the response to the bistatic sensing request at 1210 or 1310 may include an indication of a location of the respective wireless node that transmits the response to the bistatic sensing request, an indication of acceptance or rejection of the bistatic sensing request” Nam discloses a bistatic system (simultaneous transmit/receive) where a first wireless node (first device) receives a positive acceptance or rejection (determination) of bistatic initiation. The Examiner notes that a sensing request rejection is a determination of not being in the mode because a distance, defined by being within a threshold range to enable a transmitter of the first device and a receiver of the second device to perform pseudo-monostatic RF, is not met);
exchanging, by the first device after a determination that the first device and the second device are in the mode, RF signals with the second device (See at least The Examiner further notes the recited "after a determination that the first device and the second device are in the mode" in “exchanging, by the first device after a determination that the first device and the second device are in the mode, RF signals with the second device” does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted "after a determination that the first device and the second device are in the mode" step not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].);
obtaining, by communicating with the second device, signal information from the exchanged RF signals (See at least Fig. 14, Item 1408, [0167] “At 1408, the second wireless node optionally transmits a reference signal (e.g., for timing and/or positioning) to the first wireless node”); and
performing the sensing based on the signal information (See at least Fig. 14, Items 1410-1414, [0167] “At 1410 (e.g., as in 1220 of FIG. 12), the first wireless node transmits a burst of sensing signals (e.g., across a plurality of beams, at different times, etc.). At least some of the transmitted sensing signals contact one or more target objects 1412, which generates reflected signals. These reflected signals are received and measured by the second wireless node at 1414”)
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 of this title, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam, in view of Shamain (US 12582350 B1), hereinafter Shamain.
Regarding claim 2, Nam, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nam does not explicitly disclose the performing sensing comprises: detecting motion and breathing rate of a human from the signal information; and estimating a sleep status based on the detected motion and breathing rate of the human. However, Shamain, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the performing sensing comprises: detecting motion and breathing rate of a human from the signal information (See at least Fig. 2 Col. 6 Lines 6-12 “the respiration monitoring system 102 for monitoring a sleep stage of a human 204 in a bed 206, according to at least one embodiment. The computing device 202 may include one or more radar units that monitor body motions, including tiny chest and abdomen movements during respiration.”, Col. 6 Lines 28-31 “the signals generated by the radar unit may have a rhythmic waveform pattern (e.g., having periodic peaks and troughs), which may indicate a sleep stage of a user in the field view of the radar unit”); and
estimating a sleep status based on the detected motion and breathing rate of the human (See at least Fig. 2 Col. 6 Lines 6-12 “the respiration monitoring system 102 for monitoring a sleep stage of a human 204 in a bed 206, according to at least one embodiment. The computing device 202 may include one or more radar units that monitor body motions, including tiny chest and abdomen movements during respiration.”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the multi-device sensing system disclosed by Nam with the human monitoring system disclosed by Shamain. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously accurately determine sleep state of a human (See at least Col. 3 lines 31-36 “The computing device performs a series of signal processing methodologies on the waveforms received from the radar unit to recreate a respiration waveform that can be used in connection with a trained ML model to accurately determine the sleep stage of a human in a contactless manner.”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam, in view of Santra (US 20190240535 A1), hereinafter Santra.
Regarding claim 3, Nam, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nam does not explicitly disclose detecting motion of a human indicative of exercising from the signal information; extracting a doppler pattern from the signal information to estimate, for a time period in which the human is determined to be exercising, exercise information including a burned calories and a number of repetitions of a movement; and outputting the exercise information. However, Santra, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
detecting motion of a human indicative of exercising from the signal information; extracting a doppler pattern from the signal information to estimate, for a time period in which the human is determined to be exercising, exercise information including a burned calories and a number of repetitions of a movement; and outputting the exercise information (See at least Fig. 14, [0115] “the treadmill may detect leg doppler signals or doppler signals from the lower radar as a result of the second beam reflecting off the user. In block 1420, the treadmill may calculate the distance travelled by the user, and the calories burned by the user, and, in block 1414, display this data to the user” [0030] “macro-doppler movement and may be used to precisely calculate the speed, number of steps and distance covered”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the multi-device sensing system disclosed by Nam with the exercise system disclosed by Santra. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously perform accurate measurements (See at least [0033] “Advantages of embodiment vital signal sensing systems may include the ability to perform accurate vital signal measurements in the presence of relative motion between the millimeter-wave based radar sensor and the body being measured, while avoiding the need for a user being measured to physically contact the treadmill.”).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam, in view of Dai (US 20240205963 A1), hereinafter Dai.
Regarding claim 4, Nam, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nam further discloses
the determining comprises: establishing a wireless link between the first device and the second device (See at least Figs 12-15, [0161] “the bistatic sensing request, the response to the bistatic sensing request, or both, may be communicated over a wireless communications link”);
Nam does not explicitly disclose measuring a signal strength of an RF signal transmitted by the second device; comparing the signal strength with a threshold value; and determining that the first device operates in the mode when the signal strength is larger than the threshold. However, Dai, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
measuring a signal strength of an RF signal transmitted by the second device (See at least Fig. 9, Item 904, [0102] “At 904, the UE may measure a strength of at least one of the sensing signal or the CSI-RS”);
comparing the signal strength with a threshold value (See at least Figs. 7, 9, [0097] “the UE 702 may transmit an indication 738 of the broken association to the network node 704, and the network node 704 may continue to perform BM on the UE 702 using the other objects that are associated with the UE 702”, [0103] “At 906, the UE may transmit an indication of a broken association in response to the measured strength of at least one of the sensing signal or the CSI-RS being less than or equal to the signal strength threshold value.”); and
determining that the first device operates in the mode when the signal strength is larger than the threshold (The Examiner further notes the recited “when the signal strength is larger than the threshold" in “determining that the first device operates in the mode when the signal strength is larger than the threshold” does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted "determining that the first device operates in the mode" step not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the multi-device sensing system disclosed by Nam with the signal strength system disclosed by Dai. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve accuracy by filtering signals by strength (See at least [0097] “the UE 702 may transmit an indication 738 of the broken association to the network node 704, and the network node 704 may continue to perform BM on the UE 702 using the other objects that are associated with the UE 702”, [0103] “At 906, the UE may transmit an indication of a broken association in response to the measured strength of at least one of the sensing signal or the CSI-RS being less than or equal to the signal strength threshold value.”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam, in view of Gross (US 20200201319 A1), hereinafter Gross.
Regarding claim 5, Nam, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nam further discloses
the determining comprises: establishing a wireless link between the first device and the second device (See at least Figs 12-15, [0161] “the bistatic sensing request, the response to the bistatic sensing request, or both, may be communicated over a wireless communications link”);
determining a round-trip time (RTT) value of an RF signal transmitted by the first device (See at least [0164] “the response to the bistatic sensing request may be used at the respective wireless node that transmits the bistatic sensing request to measure a round trip time (RTT) between the first and second wireless nodes”);
Nam does not explicitly disclose comparing the RTT with a threshold value; and determining that the first device operates in the mode when the RTT is less than the threshold value. However, Gross, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
comparing the RTT with a threshold value (See at least [0010] “the increment of advancement is only executed by the autonomous vehicle when latency of the roundtrip signal is within a predetermined threshold” Gross discloses performing operations as a result of determining RTT less than a threshold value.); and determining that the first device operates in the mode when the RTT is less than the threshold value (The Examiner further notes the recited "when the RTT is less than the threshold value" in “determining that the first device operates in the mode when the RTT is less than the threshold value” does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted "determining that the first device operates in the mode" step not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].);
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the multi-device sensing system disclosed by Nam with the RTT system disclosed by Gross. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously provide a failsafe to network degradation (See at least [0010] “The predetermined threshold provides a failsafe to network degradation and/or transmission delays”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam, in view of Lagassey (US 20210235357 A1), hereinafter Lagassey.
Regarding claim 6, Nam, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nam does not explicitly disclose the determining comprises: determining an energy of an audio signal transmitted by the second device; comparing the energy of the audio signal with a threshold value; and determining that the first device operates in the mode when the energy of the audio signal is greater than the threshold value. However, Lagassey, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the determining comprises: determining an energy of an audio signal transmitted by the second device; comparing the energy of the audio signal with a threshold value(See at least Figs. 3-6, [0216] “Microphones 15 are constantly monitoring sounds and comparing the signals to patterns of particular events of interest, or simply compared against stored threshold acoustic levels, to determine if preliminary or qualifying sounds are detected.”, [0244] “The monitoring system 200 may include a transceiver 231, e.g., a radar or LIDAR transceiver, adapted to capture incident-related signals at the location 230.” Lagassey discloses as a result of an audio signal greater than a threshold value (indicating an event has occurred), that radar sensing is performed and recorded.); and
determining that the first device operates in the mode when the energy of the audio signal is greater than the threshold value (The Examiner further notes the recited "when the energy of the audio signal is greater than the threshold value" in “determining that the first device operates in the mode when the energy of the audio signal is greater than the threshold value” does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted "determining that the first device operates in the mode" step not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the multi-device sensing system disclosed by Nam with the audio system disclosed by Lagassey. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve efficiency by limiting false detections (See at least [0082] “threshold may be set at a level which minimizes or eliminates the false negatives, while limiting the false positives to an acceptable level. Therefore, the human monitors can be used efficiently”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam, in view of Duan (US 20240319322 A1), hereinafter Duan.
Regarding claim 7, Nam, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nam does not explicitly disclose the determining comprises: determining that the second device is being charged by the first device; and determining that the first device operates in the mode when the second device is being charged by the first device. However, Duan, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the determining comprises: determining that the second device is being charged by the first device (See at least Fig. 14, [0185] “FIG. 14 is a diagram illustrating an example of a system 1400 for joint RF sensing and energy harvesting for UAV use cases, where the system 1400 is tracking the target 1420 using (e.g., transmitting) a narrow RF sensing signal beam 1415 and performing energy harvesting. […] the network entity 1410 may increase its transmission power (e.g., of the narrow RF sensing signal beam 1415) such that the network entity 1410 can charge (e.g., transfer) more power to the target 1410 (e.g., UAV) for energy harvesting by the target 1410 (e.g. UAV).” The Examiner notes ‘the target’ is intended to reference target item 1420, not network entity 1410. Duan discloses a join RF sensing and energy harvesting mode); and
determining that the first device operates in the mode when the second device is being charged by the first device (The Examiner further notes the recited "when the second device is being charged by the first device" in “determining that the first device operates in the mode when the second device is being charged by the first device” does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted " determining that the first device operates in the mode" step not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the multi-device sensing system disclosed by Nam with the charging system disclosed by Duan. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance spectral efficiency (See at least [0003] “joint RF sensing and energy harvesting can be an essential feature for existing or future wireless communication systems, such as to enhance the overall spectral efficiency”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam, in view of Turner (US 20180353086 A1), hereinafter Turner.
Regarding claim 8, Nam, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nam does not explicitly disclose the determining comprises: determining whether the first device and the second device are being charged by a charging device; and determining that the first device operates in the mode when the first device and the second device are being charged by the charging device. However, Turner, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
the determining comprises: determining whether the first device and the second device are being charged by a charging device (See at least [0109] “In another embodiment, the radar measurements may also determine where the wireless earpieces are being worn, stored, or so forth. For example, the radar measurements may determine placement in an ear of the user, placed on a desk/counter/surface, charging in a smart charger” Turner discloses a first and second earpiece radar system detecting charging by a smart charger); and
determining that the first device operates in the mode when the first device and the second device are being charged by the charging device (The Examiner further notes the recited " when the first device and the second device are being charged by the charging device" in “determining that the first device operates in the mode when the first device and the second device are being charged by the charging device” does not move to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited art. These phrases are conditional/contingent limitations with the noted " determining that the first device operates in the mode" step not necessarily performed. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. [See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims.; MPEP §2111.04 II].)
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the multi-device sensing system disclosed by Nam with the charging sensing system disclosed by Turner. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously perform accurate readings (See at least [0032] “The radar sensor 114 of both the left wireless earpiece and the right wireless earpiece may work in combination to ensure accurate readings are performed.”).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nam, in view of Min (US 20220163650 A1), hereinafter Min.
Regarding claim 9, Nam, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Nam does not explicitly disclose converting the RF signals between the first device and the second device to channel impulse response (CIR); determining that a human is within a threshold distance based on the CIR; and displaying information associated with a battery level of the first device when the human is within the threshold distance. However, Min, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
converting the RF signals between the first device and the second device to channel impulse response (CIR) (See at least Fig. 2A, [0071] “the signal 203a is a millimeter wave, the electronic device 101 may identify the time of flight (ToF) by estimating the channel impulse response (CIR) from the reflection signal 203b, thereby determining the distance between the electronic device 101 and the object 205” The Examiner notes that the electronic device is analogous the first device and the object is analogous to the second device.);
determining that a human is within a threshold distance based on the CIR (See at least [0157] “When it is determined that the object 205 is positioned in a second range (e.g., larger than the second threshold {circle around (2)} and equal to or less than a third threshold” See also [0071], [0158]-[0160]); and
displaying information associated with a battery level of the first device when the human is within the threshold distance (See at least [0092] “the AOD state may mean a low-power display mode in which only basic information, such as time, date, or battery status, is displayed” Min discloses battery status (level) displayed on an always on display).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the multi-device sensing system disclosed by Nam with the human sensing system disclosed by Min. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve security (See at least [0016] “the processing area of the processor for recognition/authentication data obtained upon identifying the attribute of a surrounding object, raising the security level of the electronic device”).
Regarding claim 10, The combination of Nam and Min, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 9. Nam does not explicitly disclose determining, using a camera on the first device, an identity of the human using a face recognition process; and displaying information based on the identity of the human. However, Min, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
determining, using a camera on the first device, an identity of the human using a face recognition process (See at least [0225] “The authentication function may be performed based on an image of the object (e.g., the object 205 of FIG. 2A) obtained from the camera”, [0167] “when the type of the object is identified as a human face, the electronic device 101 may obtain an image of the object (e.g., face) through a camera”); and
displaying information based on the identity of the human (See at least [0169] “If the object (e.g., face) on which authentication is performed is the face of the user of the electronic device 101, the electronic device 101 may perform the function of unlocking the display”).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the multi-device sensing system disclosed by Nam with the human sensing system disclosed by Min. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve security (See at least [0016] “the processing area of the processor for recognition/authentication data obtained upon identifying the attribute of a surrounding object, raising the security level of the electronic device”).
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Allowance of claims 11-20 is indicated because:
None of the prior art of record teach or suggest the subject matter of independent claim 11. The prior art of record does not anticipate or render fairly obvious in combination to teach all of the additional limitations of the claimed invention, as best understood within the context of Applicant’s claimed invention as a whole, such as in claim 11 determine, by the first device, whether the first device operates in a mode in which the first device and a second device coordinate to simultaneously transmit and receive radio frequency (RF) signals and the first device is within a distance of the second device, wherein the distance is within a threshold range defined to enable a transmitter of the first device and a receiver of the second device to perform pseudo-monostatic RF sensing; in response to a determination that the first device is not within the distance of the second device, determine that the first device and the second device are not in the mode.
Accordingly, independent claim 11 are deemed allowable. Claims 12-20 are allowed by virtue of their dependence on allowable independent claims.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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 H Desai can be reached at (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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights