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 .
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.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a data acquisition unit that emits an electromagnetic wave to a target object and acquires measurement data generated from a reflected wave from the target object” which is indefinite for two reasons.
First, the limitation appears to be written as a method step rather than as a structural limitation of the data acquisition unit. Subsequent recitations of “a conversion condition determination unit that determines…” and a data conversion unit that converts…” are likewise rejected.
Second, Applicant has not disclosed an embodiment of the invention where the data acquisition unit emits and receives signals. On the contrary, as shown in Applicant’s Figure 1, the transmission unit 120 of the measurement device 100 emits the transmission wave, while the reception unit 140 receives the reflected wave. The reception signal is then combined with the transmission signal in the intermediate signal generation unit 170, filtered in the filter unit 180, and converted into a digital signal in the AD conversion unit 190. Then the measurement data is finally sent to the information processing device, of which the data acquisition unit is a part. Therefore, there is no plausible way for the disclosed data acquisition unit to actually emit the electromagnetic wave, nor does the measurement data received by the data acquisition unit actually correlate to the data generated from the reflected wave. On the contrary, the measurement data “may be a baseband signal” and “includes the data indicating the temporal variation in the frequency difference between the transmission wave and the reflected wave” and therefore cannot properly be said to be merely “generated from a reflected wave” (para. [0033]). Only the reception signal, as shown in Figure 1, can be said to be “measurement data generated from a reflected wave from the target object,” and the data acquisition unit does not receive the reception signal itself. Dependent claims 2-21 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “a conversion condition determination unit that determines whether a signal based on the measurement data meets a conversion condition to convert at least a part of the measurement data into sound data” which is indefinite for two reasons.
First, the nature of the “signal based on the measurement data” is unclear, as Applicant does not appear to disclose generating or otherwise creating a signal based on the measurement data, nor is such a signal shown in the drawings. Whether or not the measurement data acquired by the data acquisition unit is a spreadsheet or a signal, there is no disclosure of using such data to create a separate and discrete “signal”. Dependent claims 2-21 fail to cure the deficiency.
Second, the nature of the “conversion condition” is unclear, since the nature of the signal itself and its origin is also unclear. Even if the conversion condition were based on the measurement data, it is unclear what aspect of the measurement data is being evaluated or compared to something else in terms of determining a conversion condition. Claims 22-23 are likewise rejected. Dependent claims 2-21 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “a data conversion unit that converts at least a part of the measurement data into the sound data if the signal based on the measurement data meets the conversion condition” which is indefinite, because the nature of the conversion of the measurement data into sound data is unclear. In other words, what does it mean for a radar signal to be converted into sound data. Would a POSITA be apprised of how to create the claimed device based on the instruction to merely convert the radar data into sound data? Applicant’s specification does not appear to offer much in the way of further explanation in terms of the detailed workings of such a conversion, nor does such a conversion appear to be obvious on its face. Claims 22-23 are likewise rejected. Dependent claims 2-21 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 2 recites “where the conversion condition determination unit outputs a control signal to control the electromagnetic wave and the information processing device so that at least one of electric power consumption for emitting the electromagnetic wave or electric power consumption of the information processing device does not change before and after the conversion condition is met” which is indefinite for three reasons. First, it appears to be written as a method step rather than as a structural limitation, causing the patentable weight of the limitation to become unclear. Subsequent dependent claims 3-7 and 9-21 are likewise rejected. Second, it is unclear to say that the control signal controls the electromagnetic wave when the conversion condition determination unit is not even necessarily operably connected to the data acquisition unit, much less able to control the electromagnetic wave itself which is merely a transient signal. Electromagnetic waves can be generated in a particular manner, but not necessarily controllable by a unit that is not itself generating the wave. Subsequent dependent claims 3-4 are likewise rejected. Third, there is not antecedent basis for the recitation of “the information processing device”.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the electromagnetic wave includes a chirp signal” and “the measurement data includes an intermediate signal” which are both indefinite, because neither the electromagnetic wave nor the measurement data are elements of the claimed invention but rather transient signals/data. Therefore, the electromagnetic wave and the measurement data cannot be further limited in the context of an apparatus claim because they are outside the scope of the claimed invention. In much the same way, a claim to a cell phone cannot logically claim a limitation of a call that the cell phone may receive.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the conversion condition determination unit determines whether the conversion condition is met based on an image of a space to which the electromagnetic wave is emitted” which is indefinite, because it is unclear how the conversion condition determination unit has access to said image of said space when the invention is not claimed as having a camera or otherwise having operable access to such images.
Claim 18 recites “wherein the conversion condition determination unit generates the data map for each of different timings and generates a combined data map that indicates whether the sound data exists in at least one of the timings based on a plurality of data maps, including the data map” which is indefinite, because it is unclear what the “different timings” have to do with the emitted electromagnetic waves or the reflected waves.
Claim 21 recites “wherein the data conversion unit records the sound data and the identification information which are associated with each other” which is indefinite, because it is unclear who are what determines which sound data and identification information are associated in the first place such that the data conversion unit is in a position to record it.
Claim 23 recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium having recorded thereon a program which, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform operations comprising: acquiring measurement data generated from a reflected wave from a target object to which an electromagnetic wave is emitted” which is indefinite, because Applicant has not disclosed an embodiment of the invention where a generic computer operating said program can simply “acquire” measurement data generated from a reflected wave, i.e., in the absence of any equipment or hardware capable of collecting such data. Such data must be either collected by the computer itself via an operably connected radar system, or else deliberately sent from another device that has such a radar system, said device being outside the scope of the claimed invention. In a similar manner, a claim for a causing a computer to acquire a picture of the Grand Canyon would not make logical sense absent an operable connection to a computer with such a picture, or the computer itself having a camera located in the Grand Canyon.
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 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.
Claims 1, 5, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taki et al. (US 2022/0047839 A1), hereinafter Taki.
Regarding claim 1, Taki discloses an information processing device (abstract, regarding a sleep apnea treatment apparatus), comprising:
a data acquisition unit (ultra-wideband Doppler radar system 302; fig. 3) that emits an electromagnetic wave to a target object and acquires measurement data generated from a reflected wave from the target object (para. [0050], regarding transmitted millimeter waves 308 are reflected at the body surface of a subject 100. Reflected millimeter waves are received by plural receiving antennas 306; fig. 3);
a conversion condition determination unit that determines whether a signal based on the measurement data meets a conversion condition to convert at least a part of the measurement data into sound data (para. [0050], regarding a sleep information extraction block 200 extracts breathing information from a plurality of received signals, that is the information of channels, acquired by an ultra-wideband Doppler radar system; Examiner notes that breathing information, which is considered to be sound data, can inherently only be extracted from radar data of sufficient quality and type); and
a data conversion unit that converts at least a part of the measurement data into the sound data if the signal based on the measurement data meets the conversion condition (see again para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 5, Taki discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the conversion condition determination unit determines whether the conversion condition is met based on the measurement data (see again para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 22, Taki discloses an information processing method (abstract), comprising:
emitting an electromagnetic wave to a target object and acquiring measurement data generated from a reflected wave from the target object (see again para. [0050], fig. 3);
determining whether a conversion condition to convert at least a part of the measurement data into sound data is met (see again para. [0050]); and
converting at least a part of the measurement data into the sound data if the conversion condition is met (see again para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 23, Tak discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium having recorded thereon a program which, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to perform operations (Examiner notes that system controller 120 in fig. 3 inherently includes such a programmed memory) comprising:
acquiring measurement data generated from a reflected wave from a target object to which an electromagnetic wave is emitted (see again para. [0050]);
determining whether a conversion condition to convert at least a part of the measurement data into sound data is met (see again para. [0050]); and
converting at least a part of the measurement data into the sound data if the conversion condition is met (see again para. [0050]).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taki et al. (US 2022/0047839 A1), hereinafter Taki.
Regarding claim 20, Taki discloses the invention in claim 1, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein, if the measurement data does not meet the conversion condition, the conversion condition determination unit generates notification information to notify that the conversion condition is not met.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the invention to automatically generate a failure notification, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner, 120 USPQ 192. The purpose would be to easily and quickly inform the use of a failure of the operation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-19, and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights