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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN 113138509 filed Oct. 9, 2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 – 20 are 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.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 20, the preamble of the claims appear to suggest that the following steps or limitations are all used to process a motion signal. Yet, one of the said limitations suggests that the motion signal is sampled from the dynamic signal. As such, it is ambiguous as to how the motion signal is derived from the dynamic signal (unless sampled at a different rate – not specified) and whether the motion signal is essentially the same as the dynamic signal and whether all the claimed limitations are directly linked to the processing of a motion signal. More importantly, it is unclear as to whether all the limitations receive patentable weight assuming that not all the limitations are directly linked to the motion signal. In other words, assuming motion signal and dynamic signal are not the same, then only the last two limitations of the independent claims receive patentable weight, which would appear to contradict the preamble that suggests that all the limitations are linked to the processing of a motion signal. As such, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be fully defined thus the claims are indefinite.
Regarding claim 6, the language “in response to a time period of the second sampling signal being less than or equal to a time threshold, updating the slope signal to match the first sampling signal, the second sampling signal, and the third sampling signal with the first action” is ambiguous. The specification states “In response to the time period of the second sampling signal being less than or equal to a time threshold T2, the processor 110 may update the slope signal to combine the first sampling signal, the second sampling signal, and the third sampling signal into the single sampling signal to match the first action (Para. 46).” The specification and claim 6 appear to be either contradictory or describing different scenarios. Also, is the combination a summation or simply concatenating the signals? As such, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be fully defined, thus the claims are indefinite.
Regarding claim 16, the specification does not define “cgau6.” As such, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be fully defined, thus the claims are indefinite.
Regarding claim 19, the specification states “In an embodiment, the radar 200 may be configured such that the value of the dynamic signal (or the distance signal) increases during a period of the subject executing a specific action, and such that the value of the dynamic signal (or the distance signal) decreases during a period of the subject executing another action. For example, the radar 200 may be configured such that the value of the velocity signal (or the distance signal) decreases when the subject stands up, and such that the value of the velocity signal (or the distance signal) increases when the subject sits back down, as shown in FIG. 3 (Para. 29).” There is no indication as to what “value” refers to. As such, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be fully defined, thus the claims are indefinite.
Dependent claims 1 – 19 are rejected due to dependency on rejected base claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract ideas as explained in the Step 2A, Prong I analysis below. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as explained in Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis below. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as explained in Step 2B analysis below.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, first looks to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–54.
The independent claims 1 and 20 are directed wavelets and clustering and are thus considered mathematical. Detection is based on probability of detection (math) and determining whether a peak crosses a signal-to-noise SNR threshold, which can be visually determined (mental process).
Dependent claim 3 is directed to singular spectrum analysis, which is mathematical.
Dependent claim 4 is directed to calculating slopes, which is mathematical.
Dependent claim 5 is directed to determining whether a time period of the first sampling signal is greater than a time threshold, which can be considered mathematical; e.g., inequalities, or a mental process by which a person could visually determine which time period is longer.
Dependent claim 6 is directed to determining whether the second sampling signal Is less than or equal to a time threshold; e.g., inequalities, or a mental process by which a person could visually determine which time period is shorter. Also, claim 6 is directed to a feature of matching the first sampling signal, the second sampling signal and the third sampling signal. Please see the rejection under 112-b. Moreover, said feature is a contingent limitation and does not receive patentable weight. To avoid contingent limitations, the claim should be amended to specify that the time period of the second sampling signal is less than or equal to a time threshold.
Dependent claims 7 – 8 are directed to mathematical and/or human mental processes for similar reasons as discussed related to claims 5 – 6. Determinations based on mathematical concepts can be considered math and/or mental process. See e.g., claim 8.
Dependent claim 9 is directed to distance (math; e.g., roundtrip delay), normalization (math; e.g., scaling to unity) and multiplication (math).
Dependent claim 10 is directed to similarities (e.g., correlation – math).
Dependent claim 11 is specifically directed to dynamic time warping – math.
Dependent claim 12 is specifically directed to hierarchal clustering – math.
Dependent claim 13 is directed to matching the plurality of sampling signals in a slope correspond to plurality of actions. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, this can be done via correlations – math.
Dependent claim 14 is directed to features similar to features already determined to be math or mental process as discussed supra.
Dependent claim 15 is directed to acceleration which is a derivative of velocity which is mathematically derived from Doppler and angle.
Claims 16 – 18 are directed to features similar to features already determined to be math or mental process as discussed supra.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, next analyzes whether claims 22, 33, 36 and 41 recite additional elements that individually or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–55. The 2019 Guidance identifies considerations indicative of whether an additional element or combination of elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. Id. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(a).
In addition to reciting the above-noted abstract ideas, the issue is whether the claims as a whole including various additional elements integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. In other words, do the claims as a whole produce any meaningful limits, i.e. improvement in technology?
The improvement is directed to evaluating individual actions of a subject (person) rather than just overall motion. See Spec. Para. 2.
The additional features of claims 1 include obtaining a dynamic signal (data gathering), dividing scalogram to generate plurality of samples (data preparation/format) and outputting the motion signal (data output) – all of which are considered extra solution activity.
The additional features are the radar transceiver and control unit. Here, the radar transceiver is claimed at a high level of generality for purpose of data gathering; e.g. transmitting and receiving to collect data, thus is considered extra solution activity. See claims 1 and 20.
Additionaly, claim 20 includes a processor coupled to a transceiver.
The processor is a general purpose computer. See Spec. Fig. 1 item 110.
Algorithms that can easily be performed in the mind or by hand or with the aid of a general-purpose computer. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC. v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First. Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Even though an improvement exists, the claimed subject matter is still abstract because all of the features discussed supra are either abstract, e.g., mathematical, or extra-solution activity. A claim for a useful or beneficial abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The transceiver is claimed at a high level of generality for the purpose of data gathering and thus considered extra solution activity.
Many of the additional features of the dependent claims are directed to gathering and formatting data, which is considered extra solution activity. A time window is used to collect a certain amount of data to be processed at a time. See claim 2. Sampling is done to format a data for processing. Id. Updating the data as broadly claimed is considered data formatting and is considered extra-solution activity. See e.g. claim 9. The outputting of data is considered extra-solution activity. See e.g. claim 4.
The Examiner has reviewed the additional features and none of the additional limitations provide a meaningful limit on the claim invention. Rather, the additional limitations are directed to data gathering and data processing which is an extra-solution activity. Note that claim 6 has a 112-b rejection.
Step 2B:
Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, the issue is whether the claims add any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that, either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
More specifically, the issue is whether the ordered combination of structural features and/or steps are considered well-understand, routine and conventional or whether the ordered combination itself provides for an improvement of a particular structure. For example, BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 119 USPQ2d 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (BASCOM) provides, in summary, an example wherein the local computer, ISP server, internet computer network and controlled access network are generic computer and networking components that when taken individually do not amount to significantly more but taken together provided for an unconventional and non-generic combination of known elements that result in an improvement of filtering content thus amounting to significantly more.
As discussed supra, the improvement is directed to determining individual actions rather than just overall motion. See Spec. Para. 2. Processing circuitry is commonly used to process data from a sensor as well as controlling a sensor and it is common for processing circuitry to be connected via wireless or hardwired. All features appear to be abstract or extra-solution activity. Moreover, the improvement is not claimed to have a nexus to a unique arrangement of particular components (not considered routine, well-understood or conventional) or a series of steps wherein at least one or some of the said steps are considered not to be abstract or extra-solution activity. Again, a claim for a useful or beneficial abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As such, the ordered combination of features is directed solely to abstract ideas, extra-solution activity and activity that is considered well-understood, routine and conventional as discussed supra. The same reasoning applies to the dependent claims.
The dependent claims discussed supra further define the abstract idea in the independent claims or add limitations which recite abstract ideas like the ones addressed above or provide for extra-solution activity and/or intended use.
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.
Claims 1 – 2 and 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Francoise (Movement Analysis and Decomposition with the Continuous Wavelet Transform).
As to claim 1, Francoise discloses a method of processing a motion signal (Fig. 1 acceleration), comprising:
performing detection through a radar to obtain a dynamic signal (Section A.1 track-before-detect);
executing continuous wavelet transform on the dynamic signal to obtain a scalogram (Fig. 1 scalogram via CWT Morlet Wavelet);
dividing the scalogram to generate a plurality of samples (Section 3.2 “sampled”);
clustering the samples into a first cluster and a second cluster (Section 5.3.1 Fig. 8 shows more than one cluster.);
sampling the motion signal from the dynamic signal according to the first cluster (Fig. 7 “normalized time steps.”); and
outputting the motion signal (The figures are considered outputs.).
As to claim 2, Francoise discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein sampling the motion signal from the dynamic signal according to the first cluster comprises: determining a time window according to the first cluster (Fig. 7 time steps.; and sampling the motion signal from the dynamic signal according to the time window (Fig. 7 time steps. Sampling is indicated throughout. For example, section 5.1.1. indicates 200 Hz sampling. Sampling is required for computer processing.).
As to claim 17, Francoise discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: clustering the samples according to k-means clustering (Section 5.3.1).
As to claim 18, Francoise discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the dynamic signal comprises one of a velocity signal, an acceleration signal, and a Doppler signal (Fig. 1 Acceleration)
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.
Claims 3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Francoise in view of official notice.
As to claim 3, Francoise discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein executing the continuous wavelet transform on the dynamic signal to obtain the scalogram comprises: executing singular spectrum analysis on the dynamic signal to reconstruct the dynamic signal (Section 5.3 NMF or PCA); and executing the continuous wavelet transform on the reconstructed dynamic signal to obtain the scalogram (It appears that NMF or PCA is performed on the wavelet transformed data).
The Examiner takes official notice that it would be obvious to switch the order of NMF with taking the Wavelet in order to reduce the amount of data needed to be processed by the Wavelet transform thus improving efficiency.
As to claim 20, Francoise discloses all similar features as discussed in the prior art rejection of claim 1 as well as discloses a radar (transceiver) and computer (Section A.1).
The Examiner takes official notice that the radar transceiver and computer can be hardwired in order to allow for faster transmission of data thus increasing processing speed. Also, the Examiner takes official notice that a transceiver allows for monostatic processing which is simpler than bistatic/multi-static processing thus reduced costs.
Claims 1 – 3, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Liu (Unsupervised radar signal recognition based on multi-block Multi-view Low-Rank Sparse Subspace Clustering) in view of Official Notice.
As to claims 1 and 20, Liu teaches a method of processing a motion signal (Introduction “motion”), comprising:
performing detection through a radar to obtain a dynamic signal (Introduction “radar”);
executing continuous wavelet transform on the dynamic signal to obtain a scalogram (Figs. 1 – 2);
dividing the scalogram to generate a plurality of samples (Introduction “motion segmentation” and Table “sampling rate”);
clustering the samples into a first cluster and a second cluster (Fig. 7);
sampling the motion signal from the dynamic signal according to the first cluster (Introduction “motion segmentation” and Table “sampling rate”); and
outputting the motion signal (The figures are considered outputs.).
The Examiner takes official notice to collect data via a radar, including data of moving targets (motivation is to separate from clutter and many applications involve particular applications regarding moving targets such as the elderly as evidenced by the attached NPL documents on PTO-892), and coupled to a processor to detect said targets for processing to allow for a practical application thereby providing and/or improving marketability.
As to claim 2, Francoise discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein sampling the motion signal from the dynamic signal according to the first cluster comprises: determining a time window according to the first cluster (Fig. 5).
As to claim 3, discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein executing the continuous wavelet transform on the dynamic signal to obtain the scalogram comprises: executing singular spectrum analysis on the dynamic signal to reconstruct the dynamic signal (Section 5.3 NMF or PCA); and executing the continuous wavelet transform on the reconstructed dynamic signal to obtain the scalogram (It appears that NMF or PCA is performed on the wavelet transformed data.);
As to claim 17, Francoise discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: clustering the samples according to k-means clustering (Section 1 “k-means”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W JUSTICE whose telephone number is (571)270-7029. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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 Kelleher 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.
/MICHAEL W JUSTICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights