Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one radar type sensor installed in a predetermined area; a biological information detection device configured to detect biological information of a person in the area based on sensor data output from the sensor; and a terminal device configured to generate and display support information for supporting installation of the sensor using the detected biological information.”. How can biological information from the sensor be used to generate and display information for supporting installation of the sensor? How can a sensor provide data for its own installation? Are there two or more separate sensors? Clarification is requested. For the purpose of examination, claim 1 is being interpreted such that the terminal device is configured to generate and display support information for supporting reinstallation of the sensor using the detected biological information. The same indefiniteness issue and interpretation also applies to claims 10 and 11.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “corrects information indicating an installation position or orientation of the sensor in the area input by a user using the detected biological information”. How can biological information be used to correct an installation position or orientation? Clarification is requested.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the terminal device corrects information indicating a scale of the area input by a user using the biological information detected for the person moving along the walking route”. It is unclear what a scale of the area is. Is it the size of the region around the sensors? Is it a predetermined scale? Is it the range of the sensor? How can biological information be used to correct a scale of an area? Clarification is requested. For the purpose of examination, claim 4 is being interpreted such that the terminal device corrects information indicating the size or dimensions of an area in which the sensor is installed.
Claims not explicitly rejected above are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1, 3-8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Step 1: Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a system configured to perform a series of
functions, including detecting biological information of a person in the area based on sensor data output from a sensor. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The function of detecting biological information of a person in the area based on sensor data output from a sensor sets forth a judicial exception. The function describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea. While the function is performed by a detection device (a computer), according to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an Abstract Idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. While claim 1 recites detecting biological information of a person, it fails to recite any practical application of detecting biological information of a person. Claim 1 recites generating and displaying generic support information for supporting installation of the sensor using the detected biological information, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The generated and displayed support information does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the system does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the generated and displayed support information, nor is a particular machine used to generate and display the support information.
Step 2B: Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional elements of at least one radar type sensor installed in a predetermined area and a terminal device configured to generate and display support information for supporting installation of the sensor using the detected biological information. The at least one radar sensor is recited at a high level of generality, such that it amounts to insignificant pre-solution activity, e.g., mere data gathering steps necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. The terminal device is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and displaying activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the radar sensor and terminal device do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
The same rationale applies to claims 10 and 11. Claim 10 is directed to a method in which the Abstract Idea is performed. Claim 11 is directed to a computer system configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application. Further regarding claim 11, it is noted that there is no output or indication of the biological information of the person.
The dependent claims 3-8 also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they generally recite functions pertaining to data gathering or steps capable of being performed mentally and/or by hand. The detecting function recited in the independent claims maintains a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rajab et al. (US 20230341518 A1), hereinafter referred to as Rajab.
Regarding claim 1, Rajab discloses at least one radar type sensor installed in a predetermined area ([0020], “The system is composed of one, or a plurality, of mm-wave radars or sensors”); a biological information detection device configured to detect biological information of a person in the area based on sensor data output from the sensor ([0044], “The radar can track multiple users at any time, and concurrently measure vital signs (including but not restricted to heart rates and respiration rates, and their respective waveforms)”); and a terminal device configured to generate and display support information for supporting installation of the sensor using the detected biological information ([0170]: “The configuration of the mm-wave radar system can be automatically or manually updated based on the analysis of the radar data.”; [0176], [0190]-[0192]).
Regarding claim 2, Rajab discloses that the terminal device corrects information indicating an installation position or orientation of the sensor in the area input by a user using the detected biological information, and displays the support information including the corrected information indicating the installation position or orientation of the sensor ([0192], “mm-wave radar system is configured automatically indicate when the sensors correctly or incorrectly positioned to detect specific event or activity or vital signs or other physiological data”).
Regarding claim 10, Rajab discloses detecting biological information of a person in a predetermined area based on sensor data output from at least one radar type sensor installed in the area ([0020], “The system is composed of one, or a plurality, of mm-wave radars or sensors”, [0044], “The radar can track multiple users at any time, and concurrently measure vital signs (including but not restricted to heart rates and respiration rates, and their respective waveforms)”); and generating and displaying support information for supporting the installation of the sensor using the detected biological information ([0170]: “The configuration of the mm-wave radar system can be automatically or manually updated based on the analysis of the radar data.”; [0176], [0190]-[0192]).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajab in view of Moriya et al. (US 20190230320 A1 – Cited by Applicant), hereinafter referred to as Moriya, further in view of Ayena et al. (Risk of Falling in a Timed Up and Go Test Using an UWB Radar and an Instrumented Insole), hereinafter referred to as Ayena.
Regarding claim 3, Rajab discloses creating a virtual area which defines an area of interest ([0180]-[0183]). Rajab does not disclose displaying a map image corresponding to the area and a walking route superimposed on the map image, and instructing the person to move along the walking route. Moriya teaches a system where a map image corresponding to an area is displayed and a walking route is superimposed on the map image ([0218], “ map information M4 representing a sensing range is displayed. The map information M4 indicates a road network RD, sensors SNR.sub.1, SNR.sub.2, and SNR.sub.3 for sensing target areas AR1, AR2, and AR3, respectively, a specific person PED as a monitoring target, and a movement trajectory of the specific person PED (indicated by the black arrow line in FIG. 19).”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Rajab such that it includes displaying a map image corresponding to the area and a walking route superimposed on the map image because it makes it easier to understanding where a person is walking (Moriya, [0221]).
Rajab in view of Moriya teaches all of the elements of the claim as discussed above except instructing the person to move along the walking route. Ayena teaches a method where a person is instructed to walk along a predetermined route (Fig.2, 2.3, Experimental Procedure, Paragraph 2, “The participant was asked to stand-up from a chair, walk along 3 m, turn around (180°), walk back, and sit down again”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Rajab in view of Moriya such that it includes instructing the person to move along the walking route. This would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The modification to Rajab in view of Moriya would allow a user to test the accuracy of the sensor by walking along a predetermined walking route.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajab in view of Moriya further in view of Ayena further in view of Shouldice et al. (US 20200367810 A1), hereinafter referred to as Shouldice.
Rajab in view of Moriya further in view of Ayena discloses a person moving along a walking route. Rajab in view of Moriya further in view of Ayena does not disclose that the terminal device corrects information indicating a scale of the area input by a user using the biological information detected for the person moving along the walking route, and displays the support information including the corrected information indicating the scale of the area. Shouldice teaches a radar device which corrects information indicating the size or dimensions of an area in which the sensor is installed ([0187], “the processing device 100 may have a distance mapping (map) of a vicinity interior—such as of room. Such a map may be provided initially, e.g., at the design stage, to specify an initial sensing configuration. Optionally, the sensing system, under control of the processing device, may dynamically update (or detect) a map of the when in use by one or more persons.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Rajab in view of Moriya further in view of Ayena such that it includes the terminal device correcting information indicating a scale of the area input by a user using the biological information detected for the person moving along the walking route, and displaying the support information including the corrected information indicating the scale of the area because it allows for the sensing configuration to be updated and changed.
Claims 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajab in view of Onoue et al. (US 20210074022 A1 – Cited by Applicant), hereinafter referred to as Onoue.
Regarding claim 5, Rajab discloses all of the elements of the claim as discussed above except the terminal device displays a map image corresponding to the area and a measurement point superimposed on the map image, and instructs the person to be positioned at the measurement point. Onoue teaches a camera setting assist program which displays a map image corresponding to the area and a measurement point superimposed on the map image, and instructs the person to be positioned at the measurement point ([0094], “The terminal apparatus P1 transmits, to the server S1, setting information including specification information of a camera CAL environment information indicating an environment in which to install the camera CAL and a map image IMG of a place where to install the camera CA1 that are input by input manipulations of the user. The server S1 calculates a capturing area Ar1 of the camera CA1 in the map image IMG on the basis of the received setting information and environment information, places a subject model HM1 to serve as a capturing target of the camera CA1 at a prescribed position in the calculated capturing area Ar1”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Rajab such that it includes displaying a map image corresponding to the area and a measurement point superimposed on the map image, and instructs the person to be positioned at the measurement point, because it allows the user to check whether captured data satisfies the specification required by the user.
Regarding claim 6, Rajab further discloses that the terminal device specifies a both-detectable range, which is a range in which presence of the person is detectable and an activity state of the person is measurable by the sensor in the area, using the biological information detected for the person positioned at the measurement point, and displays the support information including the both-detectable range ([0073], “Measurements of individual target micro-Doppler signatures are demonstrated, even in the presence of multiple other moving targets. The signatures are used to train a Deep Neural Network (DNN) for activity classification.”, [0074], “The radar therefore has a… maximum detection range of r.sub.max=N.sub.adcΔr=8.1 m”, [0178] – [0192]).
Regarding claim 8, Rajab further discloses the terminal device specifies an undetectable range, which is a range in which an activity state of the person is unmeasurable by the sensor in the area, using the biological information detected for the person positioned at the measurement point, and displays the support information including the undetectable range ([0191], “mm-wave radar system is configured automatically indicate a dead area, in which a dead area refers to an area that the mm-wave radar sensor cannot correctly scan.”).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajab in view of Onoue, as applied to claim 5 above, further in view of Shouldice.
Rajab in view of Onoue discloses a terminal device which displays range information. Rajab in view of Onoue does not disclose that the terminal device specifies a person detectable range, which is a range in which presence of the person is detectable and an activity state of the person is unmeasurable by the sensor in the area, using the biological information detected for the person positioned at the measurement point, and displays the support information including the person detectable range. Shouldice teaches a radar system for detecting vital signs where there is a range in which a presence of a person is detectable and an activity state of the person is unmeasurable by the sensor ([0099], “Such a multiple tone FMCW or dual tone FMCW system (for example running on a Linux based single board computer) can provide sensing such that it is possible to identify multiple persons within the sensing range of 4 m or more. It can also detect heart rate for example at 1.5 meters from the processing device”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Rajab in view of Onoue such that it includes that the terminal device specifies a person detectable range, which is a range in which presence of the person is detectable and an activity state of the person is unmeasurable by the sensor in the area, using the biological information detected for the person positioned at the measurement point, and displays the support information including the person detectable range. This would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The modification to Rajab in view of Onoue would allow a user of the system to know the range in which an activity state cannot be measured but a presence of a person is detectable.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajab in view of Onoue, as applied to claim 8 above, further in view of Okur et al. (US 20230065922 A1), hereinafter referred to as Okur.
Rajab in view of Onoue discloses a terminal device which displays configuration parameters and indicates when the sensors are correctly or incorrectly positioned for detection. Rajab in view of Onoue does not disclose that the information displayed is information recommending addition of a new sensor based on the undetectable range. Okur teaches a method where additional radar sensors are deployed when necessary ([0025], “In some embodiments, additional camera-radar units 110 may be deployed to cover any blind spots in the field of view of existing camera-radar units ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Rajab in view of Onoue such that it includes that the terminal device displays the support information including information recommending addition of a new sensor based on the undetectable range because adding another sensor would reduce or eliminate the blind spot/undetectable range.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajab.
Rajab discloses detecting biological information of a person in a predetermined area based on sensor data output from at least one radar type sensor installed in the area ([0020], “The system is composed of one, or a plurality, of mm-wave radars or sensors”, [0044], “The radar can track multiple users at any time, and concurrently measure vital signs (including but not restricted to heart rates and respiration rates, and their respective waveforms)”); and generating and displaying support information for supporting the installation of the sensor using the detected biological information ([0170]: “The configuration of the mm-wave radar system can be automatically or manually updated based on the analysis of the radar data.”; [0176], [0190]-[0192]). Rajab also discloses using a computer program to process radar data and generate and display support information ([0175]). Rajab does not disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon and readable by a computer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the method of claim 10 is performed using a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon and readable by a computer, the computer program, when executed by the computer, causing the computer to perform the recited method steps.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Shouldice et al. (US 20200386879 A1) teaches a radar system for detection of vital signs and identification of humans.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY R UCHITEL whose telephone number is (571)305-5153. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 8:30am – 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. 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, Charles Marmor, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4730. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/EMILY R UCHITEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights