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 .
Status of Claims
Pursuant the previously filed restriction requirement, the Applicant has elected claims 1-17 for examination and has withdrawn claims 18-20. The Applicant has made this election without traverse.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025 have been considered by the examiner and an initialed copy of the IDS are hereby attached.
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 7 and 9-14 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.
The term “small enough curvatures” in claims 7,9 and 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “small enough curvatures” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 7, 9 and 10 recites the limitation "the surfaces". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "per each voxel". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the space of interest". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 12 and 13 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependency on a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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)(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8,10,14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trichopoulos et al. (US 20200163040 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Trichopoulos discloses
A method of sensing attributes of an area, a scene or an entity of interest (see paragraph 0010, “An exemplary embodiment provides method for mapping an environment. The method includes transmitting a plurality of RF signals in the environment. The method further includes receiving a response signal to the plurality of RF signals. The method further includes mapping the environment, comprising: mapping an LOS object based on a scattering of the plurality of RF signals indicated in the response signal; identifying an NLOS object from the response signal; and mapping the NLOS object using the mapped LOS object.”), the method comprising:
receiving at one or more receiving units a signal transmitted from one or more transmitting units (see paragraph 0038, “Embodiments described herein use the antenna array 12 (and additional antenna arrays in some examples) to acquire 3D image data of the environment 10 using a broadband active imaging system that illuminates an object and records backscattered RF signals 22. Thus, the antenna array 12 transmits a plurality of RF signals 22 (e.g., a broadband transmission) in the environment 10 and receives a response signal (which may include a number of response signals across the transmitted spectrum) which includes information from the backscattered RF signals 22.”),
measuring one or more attributes of the received signal (see Fig. 8, step 808 where mapping the environment based on a scattering of the RF signals in the response signal is indeed measuring one or more attributes of the received signal); and
using, at least in part, wave diffraction principles for sensing (see paragraph 0047, “FIG. 2C is a schematic diagram illustrating a corrected mapping of the environment 10 of FIG. 2A from the RF response signal of FIG. 2B. Every LOS surface 42, 44 is assumed a mirror surface and every obstructed pixel is mirrored around that surface, such that the NLOS object 38 is mirrored from the second surface 44. If the LOS surface 42, 44 is curved, then it is discretized into planar segments and the process is repeated accordingly for every segment. Diffraction at the edges of the surfaces 42, 44, 46 can be assumed to be on the same level as diffuse scattering and is not treated separately. In this manner, a mapping of the environment 10 is produced.”).
Regarding claim 2, Trichopoulos further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the signal is a radio frequency (RF) signal (see paragraph 0033, “Mapping and localization using image processing of wireless signals is provided. Embodiments of the present disclosure provide a novel approach for high accuracy mapping of an environment around an antenna (or antenna array) coupled to a radio frequency (RF) transceiver through image processing of RF signals.”).
Regarding claim 3, Trichopoulos further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the signal is a WiFi signal, a mmWave signal (see paragraph 0037, “Thus, in an exemplary aspect the antenna array 12 transmits and receives RF signals in the mmWave band, which may be defined as frequencies between 30 gigahertz (GHz) and 10 terahertz (THz). In some examples, the antenna array 12 transmits and receives RF signals having frequencies between 70 GHz and 1 THz.”), a cellular signal, or a Bluetooth signal.
Regarding claim 4, Trichopoulos further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more attributes of the received signal includes at least one of received signal strength (see Fig. 8, step 808 where mapping the environment based on a scattering of the RF signals in the response signal is indeed a “received signal strength” under BRI as a strength of “0” would indicate no scattering), received signal strength indicator (RSSI), Channel State Information (CSI) measurement, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), received channel power indicator (RCPI), received signal (see Fig. 8, step 808 where mapping the environment based on a scattering of the RF signals in the response signal is indeed a “received strength”), phase measurement, or phase measurement difference.
Regarding claim 5, Trichopoulos further discloses
The method of claim 1, further including:
generating an image of the area, scene, or entity of interest (see Fig. 8, step 804 generating a MAP of the environment, further see paragraph 0063, “In greater detail, operation 804 includes sub-operation 808, with mapping an LOS object based on a scattering of the plurality of RF signals indicated in the response signal. Operation 804 continues at sub-operation 810, with identifying an NLOS object from the response signal. Operation 804 continues at sub-operation 812, with mapping the NLOS object using the mapped LOS object.”).
Regarding claim 6, Trichopoulos further discloses
The method of claim 1, further including:
generating an edge map, generating an edge image, or tracing the edges of the area, scene, or entity of interest (see paragraph 0047, “Diffraction at the edges of the surfaces 42, 44, 46 can be assumed to be on the same level as diffuse scattering and is not treated separately. In this manner, a mapping of the environment 10 is produced.”, further see Fig. 8, generation of the map at step 804).
Regarding claim 7, Trichopoulos further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein wave interaction in the form of diffraction off of the surfaces with small enough curvatures are used (see paragraph 0047, “Diffraction at the edges of the surfaces 42, 44, 46 can be assumed to be on the same level as diffuse scattering and is not treated separately. In this manner, a mapping of the environment 10 is produced.”).
Regarding claim 8, Trichopoulos further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein wave interaction in the form of diffraction off of the edges of the objects or entities in the area of interest are used (see paragraph 0047, “Diffraction at the edges of the surfaces 42, 44, 46 can be assumed to be on the same level as diffuse scattering and is not treated separately. In this manner, a mapping of the environment 10 is produced.”, further see Figs. 2A-2C).
Regarding claim 10, Trichopoulos further discloses
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
generating a theoretical, or algorithmic model that is at least in part based on the wave interaction with the surfaces with small enough curvatures (see paragraph 0046, “Embodiments apply a correction algorithm of raw radar images (e.g., the RF response signal) using mirroring techniques. The algorithm is based on the assumption that objects are opaque at mmWaves, therefore any object that appears behind a surface on the radar images is considered an artifact and needs to be corrected (e.g., the NLOS object 38 in FIG. 2B). The first step of the algorithm is to identify objects behind the LOS objects 34, 36 and mark them for correction. Here, the NLOS object 38 needs correction.”, where the correction is using an algorithmic model).
Regarding claim 14, Trichopoulos further discloses
The method of claim 1, further including modeling the space of interest as a graph (see paragraph 0055, “FIG. 5 illustrates a 2D image of the experimental environment 62 of FIG. 4. Holographic image reconstruction (e.g., a range migration algorithm (RMA) or other appropriate technique) is used for image reconstruction, and the AoA/ToA data is superimposed on the reconstructed 2D map. The wireless device 16 in FIG. 5 has a 23 decibel isotropic (dBi) gain diagonal horn antenna.”).
Regarding claim 15, Trichopoulos further discloses
The method of claim 1, further including machine-learning-based methods (see paragraph 0039, “Alternatively, other image reconstruction methods can be applied, including multistatic holography (or range migration method), compressive holography, machine learning, and beam scanning.”).
Regarding claim 16, Trichopoulos further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one signal detector is a receiver antenna (see paragraph 0038, “Embodiments described herein use the antenna array 12 (and additional antenna arrays in some examples) to acquire 3D image data of the environment 10 using a broadband active imaging system that illuminates an object and records backscattered RF signals 22. Thus, the antenna array 12 transmits a plurality of RF signals 22 (e.g., a broadband transmission) in the environment 10 and receives a response signal (which may include a number of response signals across the transmitted spectrum) which includes information from the backscattered RF signals 22.”).
Regarding claim 17, Trichopoulos further discloses
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one signal detector is a plurality of receiver antennas arranged in a grid (see paragraph 0038, “Embodiments described herein use the antenna array 12 (and additional antenna arrays in some examples) to acquire 3D image data of the environment 10 using a broadband active imaging system that illuminates an object and records backscattered RF signals 22. Thus, the antenna array 12 transmits a plurality of RF signals 22 (e.g., a broadband transmission) in the environment 10 and receives a response signal (which may include a number of response signals across the transmitted spectrum) which includes information from the backscattered RF signals 22.”).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trichopoulos et al. (US 20200163040 A1) in view of DE JONG (US 20200162176 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Trichopoulos discloses [Note: what Trichopoulos fails to disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 1,
DE JONG discloses,
wherein Keller cones off of the surfaces with small enough curvatures are used (see paragraph 0042, “A cone step 351 includes determining one or more parameters of a Keller cone, Eq. (37), representing multiple directions of scattered rays. The cone step 351 may include offsetting a projection on the edge of the direction of incidence by the phase differential determined in step 341 as described by Eqs. (28) and (35). In the case of edge diffraction, the phase differential is a scalar obtained, e.g., by projecting the gradient g on the edge. The half-angle of this cone may be determined based on the direction of incidence offset by the phase differential (projection of the gradient vector on the edge).”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by DE JONG into the invention of Trichopoulos. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose edge diffraction principles of accurate object map generation. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to accurately predict the bending of signals around sharp corners and thereby generate more accurate maps of the environment.
Regarding claim 11, Trichopoulos discloses [Note: what Trichopoulos fails to disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 1,
DE JONG discloses,
wherein generating the image comprises identifying an edge orientation per each voxel of the scene of interest (see paragraph 0151, “Critical points of the second kind, i.e., edge-diffraction points, are determined following a procedure similar to the above, except that it evaluates the scalar b.sup.a=b.sup.a.Math.ê rather than the vector b.sup.a, and only for surface points on the perimeter of the EES, one edge at a time. Coarse estimates of the critical point locations, if they exist, are obtained by testing for sign changes in b.sup.a between adjacent grid points on the edge. The fine search is performed by means of a one-dimensional Newton search with iterations”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by DE JONG into the invention of Trichopoulos. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose edge diffraction principles of accurate object map generation. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to accurately predict the bending of signals around sharp corners and thereby generate more accurate maps of the environment.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Trichopoulos and DE JONG discloses [Note: what Trichopoulos fails to disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 11,
DE JONG discloses,
wherein identifying an edge orientation for each voxel in the sensing space of interest further comprises using Keller-cone-based models (see paragraph 0043, “A scattered ray step 361 includes determining one or more scattered rays which lie on the surface of the Keller cone. Theoretically, there is a continuum of scattered rays from a particular incidence point on the surface edge. However, an embodiment of the method may provide a limited number of rays, e.g. at discrete, regular or randomly-chosen angular intervals with respect to the Keller cone of candidate scattering directions.”, further see Fig. 5 where edge diffraction points are noted in voxel grids).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by DE JONG into the invention of Trichopoulos. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose edge diffraction principles of accurate object map generation. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to accurately predict the bending of signals around sharp corners and thereby generate more accurate maps of the environment.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Trichopoulos and DE JONG discloses [Note: what Trichopoulos fails to disclose is strike-through]
The method of claim 12, further comprising:
DE JONG discloses,
generating a theoretical or algorithmic model that is at least in part based on finding plausible edges and their corresponding orientations in the sensing area of interest using wave diffraction principles (see paragraphs 0067 - 0068, “Optionally but preferably, the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 7 further includes determining one or more incidence points on the edge. FIG. 5 illustrates candidate point values 581 and 582 on the edge of the surface. An edge candidate step 625 includes: providing an edge candidate point on an edge of the surface, such as the point 581 or 582. The edge projection step 626 includes determining a phase differential at the edge candidate point, based on the surface data at the edge candidate point; and determining a projection on the edge of a direction of diffraction from the edge candidate point, comprising offsetting a projection on the edge of the direction of incidence by said phase differential. Then the edge candidate is evaluated in evaluation step 630 and possibly updated in updating the edge candidate step 660. The edge candidate step 625, edge projection step 626, evaluation of the edge candidate point step 630, and updating step 660 are similar to steps related to internal points, adapted to the lesser dimensionality. After a suitable edge candidate is determined in the evaluation step 630, a fine approach is performed in step 640, described by Eq. (52). The fine iterative search finds edge point(s) for which the Keller cone intersects with the given observation point, i.e., for which one of the candidate scattering directions on the Keller cone points to the observation point. A direction of diffraction step 650 includes determining one or more directions of diffraction from the edge, or at least normal components thereof.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by DE JONG into the invention of Trichopoulos. Both references are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose edge diffraction principles of accurate object map generation. The combination would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to accurately predict the bending of signals around sharp corners and thereby generate more accurate maps of the environment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rappaport (US 11624821 B2) discloses portable device with a steerable antenna array to transmit mmWave/THz signals into an environment, receive multipath returns, and reconstruct an image, video, or map from the returns. The system improves the reconstruction by using a stored or received map of the environment and by interpreting phase, time-of-flight, and angle data from multiple paths [0008]-[0011], [0044], [0085]-[0088]. It can also use machine learning and prior environment knowledge to classify objects and resolve hidden or NLOS scene structure [0010], [0044], [0064]-[0066].
Yadegari et al. (US 20220148549 A1) discloses an invention that replaces exhaustive edge-diffraction computation with volumetric sampling around the direct path between source and receiver. It generates subpaths at multiple radii/distances from the path, determines whether each subpath is occluded, and converts those transmission results into an approximate diffraction amplitude response [0005]-[0006], [0048]-[0051], [0065]-[0068]. By using multiple scales and interpolating between transmission states, the system approximates the filtering behavior of a detailed diffraction model like BTM while keeping computation largely independent of scene complexity [0025], [0034]-[0035], [0089]. It also estimates path length from the sampled subpaths so delay/phase can be modeled, not just amplitude [0071]-[0076], [0097], [0102]-[0105].
Waller et al. (US 20180048811 A1) discloses an invention that shifts the illumination pattern at the sample by changing which emitters in a programmable source are active, rather than moving the patterned mask or sample [0013]-[0015], [0033]-[0041]. Because emitters at different positions produce different incidence angles, the mask pattern is laterally displaced on the sample as the selected light source pattern changes [0034], [0040]-[0041]. Multiple images taken under these shifted illumination states are then computationally combined to reconstruct a higher-resolution image [0014]-[0015], [0050]-[0054], [0071]-[0073].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAZRA N. WAHEED whose telephone number is (571)272-6713. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8 AM - 4:30 PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at (571)270-5144. 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.
/NAZRA NUR WAHEED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights