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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to: Application filed on October 13th, 2024
Claims 1-20 are pending claims.
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 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.
Claims 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saboo (US 2016/0252607 A1) in view of Lien (US 2020/0057504 A1)
As for independent claim 1:
Saboo discloses a gesture sensing device comprising:
a preprocessor configured to output sensing data and to generate a range-Doppler map, wherein the range-Doppler map includes information about a distance, a relative velocity, and an angle to an object based on a reception data signal (0023-0028, Saboo discloses performs a range FFT and a Doppler FFT on the digitized IF signal to produce a range Doppler array and performs a third angle-FFT across the range-Doppler arrays of multiple antennas. The system measures the range/distance, velocity and angle of objects);
an analyzer configured to analyze a gesture feature of the object based on the range-Doppler ma (0049-0051, Saboo discloses detects peaks and extracts peak parameters (peak width, adjacent-peak distance, error metric, and surrounding noise level) from Doppler weighted-velocity sequence for use in gesture classification);
Saboo does not disclose a visualizer configured to visualize a gesture of the object based on the gesture feature of the object analyzed. Lien discloses a visualizer configured to visualize a gesture of the object based on the gesture feature of the object analyzed in 0030.In the cited sections, Lien discloses that upon the radar-based application recognizing a detected gesture, the smartphone performs an action such as displaying content. Accordingly it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a skilled artisan to modify the method of Saboo to incorporate the teaching of Lien smartphone integration and gesture detection, thus allow using a radar system and radar-based application on a smartphone (Lien, 0004, 0031).
As for dependent claim 2:
Saboo–Lien discloses the gesture sensing device of claim 1, wherein the analyzer is configured to analyze the gesture feature of the object by detecting a temporal change in the gesture of the object using the range-Doppler map (Saboo, 0026, discloses object detection is followed by a tracking algo that tracks detected peak across consecutive frames; Lien discloses feed position data to a tracking module)
As for dependent claim 3:
Saboo–Lien discloses the gesture sensing device of claim 1, wherein the analyzer is configured to detect a peak location of the sensing data using the range-Doppler map, preserve a peak trace of the peak location, resample a peak of the sensing data to generate a resampled result, and compare a vector similarity between the peak trace of the peak location and the resampled result (Saboo, 0026 and 0049-0050, discloses detect peaks in the range Doppler grid and tracks the peak across consecutive frames as a peak trace, see ideal curve approximating in 0053).
As for dependent claim 4:
Saboo–Lien discloses the gesture sensing device of claim 3, wherein the analyzer is configured to create an ideal curve of a peak trace of the gesture based on the peak trace and the resampled result (Saboo, 0053, discloses constructs an “ideal curve” between the defining peak points).
As for dependent claim 5:
Saboo–Lien discloses the gesture sensing device of claim 4, wherein the visualizer is configured to visualize the gesture of the object by using a similarity between the gesture of the object and an artificial ideal curve, and a time change in angle information (Lie, 0030, discloses displaying content responsive to a recognized gesture, Saboo, 0027 and 0053, discloses gesture peak again the ideal curve and resolving angle information).
As for dependent claim 6:
Saboo–Lien discloses the gesture sensing device of claim 4, wherein the analyzer is configured to resample the peak trace of the gesture by applying an equation which approximates the peak trace to a change in an observed distance, velocity, and signal intensity (Saboo, 0053, discloses applies a second order polynomial equation approximating the peak shape)
As for dependent claim 7:
Saboo–Lien discloses the gesture sensing device of claim 1, wherein the preprocessor is configured to generate the range-Doppler map by performing Fast Fourier Transform (FFT) on the reception data signal (Saboo, 0023-0025, discloses range FFT and Doppler FFT on the digital IF signal; Lien, 0054, discloses FFT and Doppler filter producing range Doppler data).
As for dependent claim 8:
Saboo–Lien discloses the gesture sensing device of claim 1, wherein the reception data signal is a signal which is received through the mmWave antenna (Saboo, 0021-0022, discloses 77-81GHz signal through the received antenna)
As for independent claim 9:
Claim 9 contains substantial subject matter as claims 1 and are rejected along the same rationale
As for dependent claims 10-15:
Claims 10–15 contain substantial subject matter as claims 2–7 and are rejected along the same rationale.
As for independent claim 16:
Claim 16 contains substantial subject matter as claims 1 and 3 and is rejected along the same rationale
As for dependent claims 17-20:
Claims 17–20 contain substantial subject matter as claims 4–7 and are rejected along the same rationale
It is noted that any citation to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33,216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
The Examiner notes MPEP § 2144.01, that quotes In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825,159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968) as stating “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” Further MPEP 2123, states that “a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PHANTANA ANGKOOL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2673. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00-3:30 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, can Adam Queler be reached on 571-272-4140. 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.
/David Phantana-angkool/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2172
Prosecution Insights