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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) received on July 31st, 2024 and September 13th, 2024 has been considered by the examiner and initialed copies of the IDS sheets are hereby attached.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellig (US 20210396861 A1), hereinafter Wellig, in view of Wang et al. (US 12584645 B2), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding Claim 1, Wellig teaches [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
A ghosting processing method used with a radio wave radar sensor for monitoring a designated area (Wellig [0005] “The method includes determining when one or more of the apparent objects corresponds to a ghost object (false positive) that is not actually present in the space.”), comprising steps of:
emitting a radio wave signal to the designated area wherein the radio wave signal is reflected by the designated area (Wellig [0029] “The mmWave sensor 12 is mounted at a location where the sensor's plurality of mmWave transceivers 18 can emit and receive a corresponding plurality of mmWave beams 20 to cover substantially the entire area of space 15.”);
receiving and processing the reflected radio wave signal from the designated area to generate first point cloud distribution data (Wellig [0029] “In response to receiving beams 20 reflected off of various surfaces in space 15, sensor 12 generates output signals 10. Some examples of signals 10 include a point cloud signal 10a, a raw people count 10b, and an object location signal 10c.”); and
Wellig does not teach the limitation below. However, Wang teaches,
performing a ghosting removal calculation based on the first point cloud distribution data and at least one predefined exception zone to generate second point cloud distribution data (Wang (Col. 8, 3-12) “Additionally or alternatively, sensor 310 can use the estimated wall locations from trace 370 to reject one or more of the data points in the static point cloud as ghost target(s).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Wang into the invention of Wellig. Both Wellig and Wang are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose inventions utilizing indoor radar to map objects in a designated space, with methods for mitigating the effects of multipath reflection signals (also referred to as “ghosting” or “false positives”). Wellig discloses a radar system whereby a mm-wave sensor emits and receives a signal to generate point-cloud distribution data, along with a method for detecting false positives (ghosts) in the point cloud data; however, fails to disclose the features wherein: a calculation is performed to generate a second point cloud dataset. This feature is disclosed by Wang, where Wang discloses a radar detection method, where a point cloud formed from a room boundary is used to infer ghost targets. Based on a predefined boundary, these points can be removed from the point cloud, thus producing a second point cloud. The combination of Wellig in view of Wang would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to perform a processing method whereby a radar sensor is used to generate a point-cloud representation of objects in a room.
Regarding Claim 2, Wellig in view of Wang teaches the ghosting processing method according to claim 1. Wellig further teaches:
wherein the radio wave radar sensor is a millimeter-wave radar sensor, and the radio wave signal is a millimeter wave signal (Wellig [0004] “In some examples of the disclosure, a method for determining a number of people in a space includes monitoring the space with a mmWave sensor.”).
Regarding Claim 3, Wellig further teaches:
The ghosting processing method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one predefined exception zone is represented by a preset coordinate data file wherein it is judged that an appearance of a person in the at least one predefined exception zone in the designated area is impossible (Wellig [0026] “In some examples, the system creates a coordinate based map that represents a monitored space with separate zones. In some examples, based on the point cloud and the coordinate locations provided by the mmWave sensor, the system determines in which zones the credible objects exist.”).
Regarding Claim 4, Wellig in view of Wang teaches the ghosting processing method according to claim 3.
Wellig does not teach the limitation below. However, Wang discloses,
further comprising a step of performing a logical operation of the first point cloud distribution data and the preset coordinate data file to eliminate point cloud data which are corresponding to the at least one predefined exception zone and viewed as a ghost, thereby generating the second point cloud distribution data with the ghost removed ((Col. 8, 3-12) “Additionally or alternatively, sensor 310 can use the estimated wall locations from trace 370 to reject one or more of the data points in the static point cloud as ghost target(s).” Here, the exclusion zone is defined by the wall boundaries, and points are excluded in logical (NOT) operation, which is further shown in Wang Fig. 2, reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
432
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Wang into the invention of Wellig. Wellig discloses a radar system whereby indoor objects are detected, and ghosting is mitigated through analysis of object / point cloud life spans, the process of which is represented by a “confidence score”; however, fails to disclose the features wherein: a logical operation excludes point cloud data in a predefined exclusion zone. This feature is disclosed by Wang, where Wang discloses an indoor radar system where the boundaries of said room are measured with a radar and represented as a point cloud. The points are taught to be discarded based upon a known shape of said walls, i.e. a predefined exclusion zone being beyond the walls. The combination of Wellig in view of Wang would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to exclude point cloud data points falling within exclusion zones, as Wellig has already taught the exclusion of particular zones where targets should not credibly exist, and Wang directly teaches the exclusion of points for this purpose in the context of room boundaries.
Regarding Claim 7, Wellig teaches [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The ghosting processing method according to claim 6, wherein the radio wave radar sensor scans the objects in the designated area (Wellig [0006] “In some examples of the disclosure a method for determining a number of people in a space includes using a mmWave sensor to monitor the space. In some examples, the mmWave sensor detects one or more apparent objects in the space. The space is determined to be occupied when the mmWave sensor detects one or more apparent objects being in the space for at least a first predetermined duration of time.”)
Wellig fails to teach the limitation below. Wang teaches,
wherein the radio wave radar sensor scans the objects in the designated area for a designated time period in advance (Wang (Col 13, 5-14) “Processing circuitry 830 may set the timer at the beginning of a user-assisted wall-detection procedure and/or at the beginning of a user-assisted calibration procedure.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Wang into the invention of Wellig. Wellig discloses a radar system whereby objects are continually monitored, with an occupancy indicator being updated if a new non-static object is detected; however, fails to disclose the features wherein: A specific timer is set up such that the static objects and exclusion zone point clouds may be calibrated. This feature is disclosed by Wang, where Wang discloses a calibration procedure where the duration of said procedure is user defined. The combination of Wellig in view of Wang would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to apply a specific scanning time to the invention of Wellig to calibrate the radar response before any potential occupants enter the designated space.
Regarding Claim 9, Wellig further teaches :
The ghosting processing method according to claim 1, wherein a front-end radar module of the radio wave radar sensor emits the radio wave signal to the designated area, and receives the reflected radio wave signal from the designated area (Wellig [0029] “The mmWave sensor 12 is mounted at a location where the sensor's plurality of mmWave transceivers 18 can emit and receive a corresponding plurality of mmWave beams 20 to cover substantially the entire area of space 15.” Here the sensor by design must have a front from which the waves are emitted / received, see Wellig Fig. 1 instance 18 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
471
384
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Wellig teaches [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The ghosting processing method according to claim 9, wherein a detection layer module of the radio wave radar sensor generates the first point cloud distribution data according to the reflected radio wave signal (Wellig [0030] “Point cloud signal 10a provides a point cloud 22 of each apparent object detected by sensor 12 (see FIG. 2). The term, “point cloud” refers to a collection of data points in a coordinate system to represent the shape of some apparent object.”),
Wellig fails to teach the limitation below. Wang teaches,
and performs the ghosting removal calculation based on the first point cloud distribution data and the at least one predefined exception zone to generate the second point cloud distribution data (Wang (Col. 8, 3-12) “Sensor 310 can use the static point cloud to refine the estimated locations of walls 320, 330, 340, and 350. Additionally or alternatively, sensor 310 can use the estimated wall locations from trace 370 to reject one or more of the data points in the static point cloud as ghost target(s).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Wang into the invention of Wellig. Wellig discloses the construction of point-cloud representations of objects in the predefined space, the characteristics of which are used to infer false positive detections; however, fails to disclose the features wherein: the ghosting removal calculation modifies the point cloud data based on the exclusion zones, thus producing a second point cloud. This feature is disclosed by Wang, where Wang discloses the use of pre-defined room boundaries to reject points in a static point cloud, thus removing potential ghost detections. As Wellig already motivates exclusion zones based upon expected occupancy, the modification of point cloud data where some of said data fails in exclusion zones would clearly remove potential for false positive detections. The combination of Wellig in view of Wang would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to generate a point cloud measurement of objects in a designated space, then use predefined exclusion zones to modify said point cloud and thus produce a second point cloud with ghost reflections being removed.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellig (US 20210396861 A1) in view of Wang (US 12584645 B2), further in view of Mannesson (US 20220373672 A1), hereinafter Mannesson.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Wellig in view of Wang teaches the ghosting processing method according to claim 3. Wellig teaches [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
wherein the preset coordinate data file representing the at least one predefined exception zone (Wellig [0034] “Occupancy module 30 includes a sampling block 40, a point cloud data base 42, a point cloud counter 44, an occupancy analyzer 46, and an occupancy indicator 48.” Here the examiner notes that a data base is known to those of ordinary skill in the art to be equivalent to a data file.)
Wellig in view of Wang do not teach the limitation whereby a blueprint is used to generate said exclusion zones. However, Mannesson teaches,
is obtained by converting a layout blueprint of the designated area (Mannesson [0050] “In particular, the scene model 208 comprises information indicating areas in the scene with expected ghost target detections and areas with expected real target detections.” , further, Mannesson [0076] “The scene model 208 may be represented as e.g., a look-up table or as map data stored on a memory device, or be stored as discrete grid points.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Mannesson into the combination of the inventions of Wellig in view of Wang. The set of Mannesson, Wellig, and Wang are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose radar detection systems whereby false positive detections are mitigated by some method. The combination of Wellig in view of Wang discloses a radar system where a ghost processing method uses information about potential zone occupancy to exclude certain point-cloud data; however, fails to disclose the features wherein: a blueprint is used to generate said exclusion zones. This feature is disclosed by Mannesson, where Mannesson discloses the use of a scene model (blueprint) to use information regarding a room layout to denote areas with expected ghost target detections and an area with true target detections. The combination of Wellig and Wang further in view of Mannesson would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to generate the exclusion zones described in Wellig in view of Wang using a blueprint layout of the designated space.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellig (US 20210396861 A1) in view of Wang (US 12584645 B2), further in view of Jones et al. (US 20210124950 A1), hereinafter Jones.
Regarding Claim 8, Wellig in view of Wang teaches the ghosting processing method according to claim 7.
Wellig in view of Wang does not disclose the limitations below. Jones teaches,
wherein the preset coordinate data file representing the at least one predefined exception zone is automatically calibrated by scanning the designated area at intervals (Jones [0295] “Auto-exclusion zones can be determined automatically at any desired or appropriate time interval to improve the usability and performance of the tracking system 100.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Jones into the combined invention of Wellig in view of Wang. The set of Wellig, Wang, and Jones are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all teach radar detection systems whereby exclusion zones are used for the mitigation of ghost detections. Wellig in view of Wang discloses the continuous monitoring of a predetermined space, where the observed scene is represented by a point cloud and updated as occupants enter and leave. The space, and objects within it, are represented as a coordinate-based map with separate zones; however, fails to disclose the features wherein: the coordinate system is automatically calibrated at fixed time intervals. This feature is disclosed by Jones, where Jones discloses the calibration of auto exclusion zones using a fixed time interval, rather than continuously as stated in Wellig in view of Wang. The combination of Wellig, Wang and Jones would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to update the coordinate map of the designated space at a fixed time interval defined by a user, which would be desirable in order to reduce computational costs of continuously updating a point cloud map.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellig (US 20210396861 A1) in view of Wang (US 12584645 B2), further in view of Lin et al. (US 12430919 B1), hereinafter Lin.
Regarding Claim 11, Wellig in view of Wang teaches [Note: what is not clearly disclosed is strike-through]:
The ghosting processing method according to claim 1, further comprising steps of: (Wellig [0064] “In some examples, internal algorithms of mmWave sensor 12 include sensitivity variables that determine the sensor's ability to disregard false positives (ghosts) and false negatives (lost detection of real objects).”);
Wellig in view of Wang does not teach the limitations below. Lin teaches,
calculating a quantitative percentage of reflection points located within the predefined exception zone when not all reflection points of one point cloud are located within the predefined exception zone (Lin (Col. 3, 12-32) “One technique that may be used for detecting false positive events is the comparison of a bounding box of a newly-detected object with a bounding box of a previously-detected object (e.g., a past false positive object detection) using an intersection-over-union metric. The intersection-over-union (IoU) metric is a ratio of the number of pixels of the intersection of the two bounding boxes to the number of pixels in the union of the two bounding boxes.”); determining that the one point cloud is a ghost and entirely removing the one point cloud if the quantitative percentage exceeds a preset percentage; and determining that the one point cloud is not a ghost and retaining the one point cloud if the quantitative percentage does not exceed the preset percentage (Lin (Col. 3, 39-44) “In various examples, the confidence score of the object detector for the object detection (e.g., for the newly-detected bounding box) may be used during the similarity determination to determine whether to filter out the newly-detected bounding box as a false detection, as described in further detail below.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Lin into the combined invention of Wellig and Wang. The set of Wellig, Wang and Lin are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they all disclose the analysis of point-cloud data from radars to mitigate ghosting effects. The combination of Wellig and Wang discloses a radar system whereby targets in designated exclusion zones can be excluded from consideration; however, fails to disclose any specific method by which to determine if an object, as represented by a point cloud, actually falls within an exclusion zone. This feature is disclosed by Lin, where Lin discloses the use of a quantity known as the intersection-over-union (IoU), which is a common tool in computer vision to determine if a point-cloud falls within a three-dimensional bounding box. Wellig teaches that a sensitivity variable can be defined to determine the method’s sensitivity to ghost detections, as an oversensitivity to ghosts can lead to so-called false negative instances where true targets are discarded. In this case, such a sensitivity parameter would be linked to the IoU, where a certain fraction of a point-cloud overlapping with an exclusion zone would be used to determine if an object is discarded as a ghost reflection. As no specific method is provided in Wellig to determine if a point cloud falls into a particular zone, the standard method of the IoU metric as discussed in Lin would provide a clear method to do so. The combination of Wellig and Wang and Lin would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success to completely remove a point cloud representing an object if a certain percentage of detected points, represented by an IoU index, fall within an exclusion zone.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS JAMES HALLORAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8643. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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 Keller 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.
/T.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights