DETAILED ACTION
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 filed 12/16/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
There is no copy for non-patent literature #7 to NANZER, J.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 1 – “System” needs to be changed to “A system”.
Regarding claims 2-11, line 1 of each claim – “System” needs to be changed to “The system”.
Regarding claim 12, line 1 – “Method” needs to be changed to “A method”.
Regarding claims 13-20, line 1 of each claim – “Method” needs to be changed to “The method”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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.
Initially, the following is noted.
“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment); E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent’s written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims ‘in view of the specification’ without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims.”); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186).
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (referring to “the danger” of importing claim limitations from the specification). See also Varco, L.P. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., 436 F.3d 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (stating how the Federal Circuit “will not at any time” bring in claim limitations from the specification); Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186-67 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (following that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims).
The claim fails to clearly and distinctly define the metes and bound of the inventive subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, the claimed language of “communicate with the controller which is configured for this purpose, be actuated by the controller which is configured for this purpose, and transmit the measurement data to the controller which is configured for this purpose” is unclear and not readily understood. It is unclear of what is meant and encompasses “configured for this purpose” as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected as being incomplete for omitting essential step(s) or an end result. The omitted step(s) is the step(s) wherein the claimed limitation is actually doing something tangible with the end result, i.e. the feature ascertained is put to use or output a concrete result.
Still regarding claim 12, the claim is indefinite as it attempts to claim both a system and a method for using that system. It is unclear whether infringement of claim 12 occurs when one creates a system for ascertaining a feature of an object or whether infringement occurs when the feature of the object occurs from the measurement date detected by the assisting modality means and primary modality means. A claim such as those before us cannot be both method and apparatus. It must be clear from [the] wording [of the claim] that it is drawn to one or the other of [the] mutually exclusive statutory classes of invention [set forth in 35 USC 101]. See Ex parte Lyell, 1551, 1552.
Other claims are also rejected based on their dependency of the defected parent claim(s).
It is Applicant’s responsibility to draft a clear and concise set of claims defining the metes and bounds of Applicant’s invention. Applicant should review all of the outstanding claims in response hereto. All of the claims should be reviewed for issues related to clarity and scope as the errors/issues are not constrained to those listed above.
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.
Claim limitation “means” (i.e. claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-10) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a method for ascertaining a feature of an object that is accomplished through a series of mental processes. The claims also require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Thus, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217—18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices {Alice, 573 U.S. at 219—20, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas {Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594—95 (1978)); and mental processes {Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” {Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” {id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267—68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour {Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract...is not accorded the protection of our patent laws,…and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].”” Id. ((alteration in the original) quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requiring] generic computer implementation fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Under Step 2A of that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Analysis
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 12 recites a method. Thus, the claim is a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One – Recitation of Judicial Exception
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is a two-prong inquiry. In Prong One, we evaluate whether the claims recites a judicial exception. For abstract ideas, Prong One represents a change as compared to prior guidance because we here determine whether the claim recites mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes.
Claim 12 recites the steps of:
c) ascertaining the feature from the measurement data
The “ascertaining” step may be performed in the human mind using observation and evaluation.
Therefore, such step of as claimed in claim 12 encompasses processes that can be performed mentally; thus, fall within “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
In addition, dependent claims 12-20 further claiming information gleaned from the mental processes.
Regarding claims 12-20, the further steps of ascertaining the feature of the object as claimed may be practically performed in the human mind observation, evaluation, opinion, and judgment.
Therefore, dependent claims 12-20 also falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Since the claims recite an abstract idea, the analysis proceeds to Prong Two to determine whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception, in Prong Two we next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. This evaluation requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The only additional elements of claim 12 are “a) detecting the feature by means of the assisting modality, and generating measurement data with respect to the feature; b) detecting the feature by means of the primary modality, wherein the primary modality is actuated by the controller in such a way that the measurement data generated in step a) are taken into account, and generating measurement data with respect to the feature”. These limitations, at a high-level of generality, merely recites data communication and gathering steps for further analyzing/determining steps. As such, it amounts to no more than insignificant extra--solution activity to the judicial exception. Further, claims 12-20 require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all claims elements, both individually and in combination, are directed to the manipulation of data by a general purpose computer and/or performing by a person. Accordingly, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Step 2B – Inventive Concept
For Step 2B of the analysis, it is determined whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, convention” in the field.
As stated above, claims 12-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Since this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements amount to no more than data gathering steps and mental processes. Merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception does not provide an inventive concept.
The courts have considered the following examples to be well-understood, routine, and conventional when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity: i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 11-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orenstein et al (IDS reference – WO 2016/193972).
PNG
media_image1.png
870
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, and similarly claim 12, Orenstein et al disclose in Fig 1 above a system for ascertaining a feature of an object (i.e. “The present invention relates to remote monitoring. More particularly, the present invention relates to systems and methods for non-contact monitoring activity of humans and animals.”) (page 1, lines 3-5); (i.e. “The information extracted from such parameters should encompass activity patterns (such as location, speed, acceleration)…”) (page 1, lines 16-17),
wherein the system has a primary modality (i.e. radar 140), an assisting modality (i.e. sonar 120, optical detector 170), and a controller (i.e. controller 156 in conjunction with processor 157 and communication unit 159) (i.e. “The SONDAR 100 comprises a sonar module 120, and a radar module 140, both of which are controlled by a controller 156 and processor 157…”) (page 9, lines 22-23); (i.e. “SONDAR100 may comprise an optical detector 170 having a substantially coarse resolution such that the generated optical information is not sufficient for identification of a particular person…”) (page 16, lines 1-3).
wherein the primary and the assisting modality are configured to in each case detect the feature, generate measurement data with respect to the feature, communicate with the controller which is configured for this purpose, be actuated by the controller which is configured for this purpose, and transmit the measurement data to the controller which is configured for this purpose (i.e. “The controller 156 may simultaneously accumulate information from the complementary sonar module 120 and radar module 140, such that enhanced monitoring may be achieved for the activity inside the space 180. Specifically, the monitored activity may include at least one of the following: • Collecting patterns for the motion of the object…” (page 10, lines 7-11); (i.e. The SONDAR 100 comprises a sonar module 120, and a radar module 140, both of which are controlled by a controller 156 and processor 157, whereby the SONDAR100 is capable of remotely monitor space 180.) (page 9, lines 22-24),
wherein the controller has means which are configured to actuate the primary modality such that the measurement data generated by the assisting modality are taken into consideration, and the controller has means which are configured to ascertain the feature of the object from the totality or from a part of the totality of the generated measurement data (i.e. “Thus, the positioning of the radar module 140 may be manipulated by the radar guiding module 144 in order to direct the microwave beams towards a point of interest in the selected space 180. For example, an emergency situation detected by the sonar module 120 may indicate that the subject 110 has fallen and is lying on the left side of the room 180. The control unit 156 may then manipulate the radar guiding module 144 to move a few centimeters to the left in order to focus the microwave beams onto the exact location of the monitored subject 110.”) (page 12, lines 10-16).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 2, and similarly claim 13, Orenstein et al disclose the feature of the object relates to the shell of the object and/or that the object is a living creature and/or that the feature of the object is a position, velocity and/or acceleration of a region of the object or the shell of the object (i.e. “The information extracted from such parameters should encompass activity patterns (such as location, speed, acceleration)…”) (page 1, lines 16-17), and/or an item of phase information of a wave reflected from a region of the object or of the shell of the object (i.e. “By measuring the time dependent phase differences, it may be possible to extract the accurate vertical trajectory of a falling subject.”) (page 14, lines 8-9).
Regarding claim 3, and similarly claim 14, Orenstein et al disclose the controller comprises means which are configured to store the measurement data (i.e. “In some exemplary embodiments, SONDAR server may comprise a plurality of processing devices, services and data repositories…”) (page 10, lines 28-30).
Regarding claim 5, Orenstein et al disclose the primary modality comprises a radar system having at least one transmitting antenna and at least one receiving antenna (i.e. “The radar module 140 may send the microwaves 145 towards the space 180, so as to monitor signals that are reflected back from the at least one object 110 inside the space of interest 180 (for instance a bedroom, a yard, etc.).”) (page 12, lines 3-6).
Regarding claim 8, Orenstein et al disclose the assisting modality comprises an optical measuring system (i.e. “SONDAR100 may comprise an optical detector 170 having a substantially coarse resolution such that the generated optical information is not sufficient for identification of a particular person…”) (page 16, lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 11, and similarly claim 20, Orenstein et al disclose the system is a component of a sport, training or fitness measuring or fitness information system, that the system is used for a medical, psychological, diagnostic or therapeutic purpose and/or is used for generating digital human avatars as claimed (i.e. broadly reads on “Recording of human activity using remote non-obstructive sensing has many applications, such as monitoring of endangered groups (including elders and children), and also monitoring of everyday activity at work, during training, or for security purposes.”) (page 1, lines 7-9).
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, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7, 10, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orenstein et al.
Regarding claim 7, Orenstein et al do not explicitly disclose the primary modality comprises a CW, stepped-frequency and/or frequency-shift keying radar system. However, such CW, stepped-frequency and/or frequency-shift keying are well known in the radar system. Therefore, utilizing any of the CW, stepped-frequency and/or frequency-shift keying in the radar system based on their known advantages and disadvantages would be an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 10, and similarly claim 19, Orenstein et al do not explicitly disclose controller comprises means which are configured to use a static filter and/or that the means are configured such that a vectorial velocity measurement takes place. However, such static filter is well known in the art for iterative and filtering processes for predicting location and speed information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a well-known static filter for properly predicting location and speed information.
Regarding claim 16, Orenstein et al do not explicitly disclose the primary modality transmits waves having fewer than 10 different frequency sampling points, from a transmitting antenna as claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include that the primary modality transmits waves having fewer than 10 different frequency sampling points, from a transmitting antenna for sampling data, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Orenstein et al in view of Ender et al (IDS reference – DE 102010051207).
Regarding claim 6, and similarly claim 17, Orenstein et al do not explicitly disclose the antennas of the radar system form a MIMO aperture, wherein means are present which are configured for generating a laterally focused image of the object by aperture synthesis as claimed. Ender et al teach in the same field of endeavor the use of additional radar sensor in MIMO constellations to increase the performance of the proposed sensor arrangement. It is also disclosed that the resolution and the signal-to-noise ratio can be increased by accumulating all sensor contributions in the correct phase ([0031]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Orenstein et al in view of Ender et al by incorporating such additional radar sensor in MIMO constellations as taught by Ender et al to gain advantage of properly generating a laterally focused image of the object by aperture synthesis; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9, 15, and 18 are allowed over prior art. However, 35 USC 112(b), 35 USC 112(f), and/or 35 USC 101 rejections must be overcome.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 12,449,508 discloses techniques and systems are described for Spatial-Block Code Division Multiplexing (CDM) for MIMO waveforms. A radar system includes multiple transmitters, receivers, and phase shifters. Electromagnetic (EM) signals are transmitted and received in a Spatial-Block CDM scheme. Each spatial block has multiple slots outnumbering the channels. In addition, each slot corresponds to a specific code of phase shifts applied across the channels by the phase shifters during that slot. Fast-Fourier Transformations are applied to reflections of the EM signals to generate complex observations at each of the channels during each slot. Based on the observations, whether a Doppler phase shift exists between two slots can be determined based in part on whether the phase shift has one or multiple possible values. The techniques allow velocities to be resolved, despite a mixed-Doppler interval detected. Analog beamforming is supported; slots can be directed at particular angles to change gain in a field of view.
US 12,078,751 discloses radar apparatuses, devices, systems and methods. In one example, an apparatus may include a plurality of Transmit (Tx) antennas to transmit radar Tx signals, a plurality of Receive (Rx) antennas to receive radar Rx signals based on the Tx signals, and a processor to generate radar information based on the radar Rx signals. The apparatus may be implemented, for example, as part of a radar device, for example, as part of a vehicle including the radar device. In other aspects, the apparatus may include any other additional or alternative elements and/or may be implemented as part of any other device.
US 11,534,085 discloses a signal processing device capable of distinguishing and measuring a plurality of measurement targets even with simple configuration. The signal processing device including a reception processing unit that receives a response to a predetermined signal transmitted from a transmission antenna, and a determination unit that determines the plurality of measurement targets by a response to a plurality of signals corresponding to a second direction having a predetermined range different from a first direction having a predetermined range.
US 7,688,252 discloses a radar system, in particular for measuring distance and/or speed in motor vehicles, in which harmonics of a fundamental frequency are used. In the radar system, harmonic excitation of an antenna is carried out in different frequency ranges. The antenna characteristic which varies as a function thereof is used to analyze different solid angle ranges around an object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights