CTNF 18/828,624 CTNF 94456 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract ideas as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as explained in Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in Step 2B analysis below. Step 2A, Prong 1: Step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–54. A person could visually count peaks crossing the signal-to-noise threshold, thus including any true and false targets of interest – thus the counting is a mental process. Damping, when, broadly construe could be any rule to give more weight to either one of increasing or decreasing apparent count thus this could be mental and/or mathematical. Hysteresis is the dependence on a system past which could be a mathematical scalar that is inversely proportional to apparent count. See claim 10. Regarding claim 7, a person can visualize movement. Regarding claim 14, the inversely proportional discussed supra can be other than linear. Regarding claims 8 and 18, a person can recognize individual human patters. Step 2A, Prong 2: Step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, next analyzes whether claims 22, 33, 36 and 41 recite additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–55. The 2019 Guidance identifies considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(a). In addition to reciting the above-noted abstract ideas, the issue is whether the claims as a whole including various additional elements integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. In other words, do the claims as a whole produce any meaningful limits, i.e. improvement in technology? The invention appears to be directed to privacy because a radar doesn’t show as much detail as a camera. See Para. 3. Here, the radar (mm Wave sensor) is claimed at a high level of generality for the purpose of data gathering, including transmitting and receiving, is considered extra-solution activity. See claims 1 – 20. The processor(s) appear to be a general-purpose computer See Spec. Para. 64. Algorithms that can easily be performed in the mind or by hand or with the aid of a general-purpose computer. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC. v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First. Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even though an improvement exists, the claimed subject matter is still abstract because all of the features discussed supra are either abstract, e.g., mathematical, or extra-solution activity. A claim for a useful or beneficial abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1371, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015). None of the additional limitations provide a meaningful limit on the claim invention. Rather, the additional limitations are directed to data gathering and data processing which is an extra-solution activity. Claims 4 – 5 and 15 – 16 dictate particular duration requirements which appear to be either data manipulation or data gathering thus considered extra solution activity. Step 2B: Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, the issue is whether the claims adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d). More specifically, the issue is whether the ordered combination of structural features and/or steps are considered well-understand, routine and conventional or whether the ordered combination itself provides for an improvement of a particular structure. For example, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC , 119 USPQ2d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (BASCOM) provides, in summary, an example wherein the local computer, ISP server, internet computer network and controlled access network are generic computer and networking components that when taken individually do not amount to significantly more but taken together provided for an unconventional and non-generic combination of known elements that result in an improvement of filtering content thus amounting to significantly more. The claims appear to use a sensor with a computer, which is routine, conventional and well-known. The duration requirements are for data gathering/manipulation purposes. Again, a claim for a useful or beneficial abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1371, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As such, the ordered combination of features is directed solely to abstract ideas, extra-solution activity and activity that is considered well-understood, routine and conventional as discussed supra. The same reasoning applies to the dependent claims. The dependent claims discussed supra further define the abstract idea in the independent claims or add limitations which recite abstract ideas similar to the ones addressed above or provide for extra-solution activity and/or intended use. The dependent claims not specifically mentioned are simply narrowing the features already determined to be abstract. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1 – 2 and 6 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang (US 20200302187 A1) . As to claim 1, Wang discloses a method for determining a number of people in a space, the method comprising : monitoring the space using a mmWave sensor to detect one or more apparent objects in the space (Para. 33 “radar” and Para. 173 “false peak”); maintaining a people count that is representative of the number of people that are currently in the space based at least in part on the one or more apparent objects detected by the mmWave senso r (Para. 173); and dampening changes to the people count as the number of apparent objects detected by the mmWave sensor changes over time (Para. 190 “average accuracy”), wherein the people count is dampened more heavily when the people count is decreasing than when the people count is increasing (contingent limitation.). In order to avoid the contingent limitation, the Examiner suggest the following amendment in lieu of the last claimed feature the Examiner cited as a contingent limitation: determining whether the people count is decreasing or whether the people count is at least increasing and wherein the people count is dampened more heavily when the people count is decreasing else the people count is dampened less heavily when the people count is increasing . The suggest Examiner’s amendment is not disclosed or taught by the prior art . As to claim 2, Wang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: when the people count is representative of at least one person currently in the space, reporting that the space is occupied; and when the people count is representative of zero people currently in the space (Para. 254), reporting that the space is unoccupied (contingent limitation.). As to claim 6, Wang discloses the method of claim 1, comprising: determining which of the one or more apparent objects corresponds to a person; and maintaining the people count based at least in part on the one or more apparent objects detected by the mmWave sensor that correspond to a person (Para. 274). As to claim 7, Wang discloses the method of claim 6, wherein determining which of the one or more apparent objects corresponds to a person comprises: determining movement of each of the one or more apparent objects over time; and determining which of the one or more apparent objects corresponds to a person based at least in part on the determined movement of the corresponding apparent object (Para. 33 & 182). As to claim 8, Wang discloses the method of claim 7, wherein determining which of the one or more apparent objects corresponds to a person comprises: determining a lifetime of each of the one or more apparent objects; and determining which of the one or more apparent objects corresponds to a person based at least in part on the determined lifetime of the corresponding apparent object (Para. 146). As to claim 9, Wang discloses the method of claim 6, wherein determining which of the one or more apparent objects corresponds to a person comprises: determining a lifetime of each of the one or more apparent objects; and determining which of the one or more apparent objects corresponds to a person based at least in part on the determined lifetime of the corresponding apparent object . ( Id. ) As to claim 10, Wang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the dampening includes hysteresis (as broadly claim hysteresis can be any rule thus could be based on motion as cited previously many times.). As to claim 11, Wang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the one or more apparent objects detected by the mmWave sensor include one or more false positives detections of people and/or one or more false negatives detections of people in the space (Since both are claim, any apparent detection would include at least one of the two thus inherent.) Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/828,624 Page 2 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/828,624 Page 3 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/828,624 Page 4 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/828,624 Page 5 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/828,624 Page 6 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/828,624 Page 7 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/828,624 Page 8 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/828,624 Page 9 Art Unit: 3648
Prosecution Insights