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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 15 and 19, recite ‘tracking software’ but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. The term “tracking software” is treated as a black box and the specification does not describe the specifics of how to achieve the above-recited function(s) with this software. It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the software functionality because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
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 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.
Claim 1 recites ‘a human body CSI gait parameter’ after reciting ‘gait parameter’ making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
The term “actual” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “actual” 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.
Claim 4 refers to ‘The method’ then later recites ‘a method’ making it unclear exactly what is intended to be claimed. Does ‘a method’ refer to the overall method?
Claim 5 refers to ‘The method’ then later recites ‘a method’ making it unclear exactly what is intended to be claimed. Does ‘a method’ refer to the overall method?
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the correlation" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “actual” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “actual” 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.
Claim 6 recites ‘a human body CSI gait parameter’ after reciting ‘gait parameter’ making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not. For examination purposes they will be treated as the same element.
The term “actual” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “actual” 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.
Claim 9 is a system but then claims method steps making it unclear what the intended effect on the scope of the claim is meant to be. Given the language it is unclear if claim 9 does further narrow claim 6 or not, which further makes it unclear whether a 112d rejection should be applied. But as currently written it is unclear. This similarly applies to claim 10.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the correlation" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “actual” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “actual” 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.
The term “high” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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.
The term “actual” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “actual” 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.
Claim 15 refers to ‘The method’ then later recites ‘a method’ making it unclear exactly what is intended to be claimed.
Claim 16 refers to ‘The method’ then later recites ‘a method’ making it unclear exactly what is intended to be claimed.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the correlation" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “actual” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “actual” 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.
The term “high” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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.
The term “actual” in claim 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “actual” 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.
Claim 19 is a system but then claims method steps making it unclear what the intended effect on the scope of the claim is meant to be. Given the language it is unclear if claim 19 does further narrow claim 9 or not, which further makes it unclear whether a 112d rejection should be applied. But as currently written it is unclear. This similarly applies to claim 20.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the correlation" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “actual” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “actual” 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.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 19 is a system and thus an apparatus and claim 19 recites ‘equipping a mark on a first body part of the human body’ thus appearing to positively claim a human organism. Examiner notes for the purpose of compact prosecution the following SME analysis is made assuming claim 19 is amended to correct this issue.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 1-20 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a system (claims 6-10, 17-20) and a method (claims 1-5, 11-16).
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 1 and 6, the recited steps are directed mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Specifically from claim 1:
(S1) using a transmitter and a receiver to establish a Wi-Fi space, wherein the transmitter is configured to emit a first wireless signal;
(S2) moving a human body in the Wi-Fi space to receive a second wireless signal by the receiver, and extracting a CSI signal from the second wireless signal, wherein the second wireless signal is formed by the first wireless signal reflected from the human body;
(S3) preprocessing the CSI signal to obtain a denoised CSI signal;
(S4) performing a feature extraction on the denoised CSI signal to obtain a human body CSI gait parameter; and
(S5) calibrating the human body CSI gait parameter using a calibration equation to obtain a calibrated gait parameter.
Specifically from claim 6:
a transmitter configured to emit a first wireless signal;
a receiver arranged relative to the transmitter to optionally receive a second wireless signal and extract a CSI signal from the second wireless signal, wherein the second wireless signal is formed by the first wireless signal reflected from a human body; and
a processor arranged relative to the receiver and configured to receive the CSI signal and execute an instruction as the following:
(SA) preprocessing the CSI signal to obtain a denoised CSI signal;
(SB) performing a feature extraction on the denoised CSI signal to obtain a human body CSI gait parameter; and
(SC) calibrating the human body CSI gait parameter to obtain a calibrated gait parameter using a calibration equation.
These underlined limitations describe a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a medical, biomedical or engineering professional with the aid of a pen and paper; their knowledge gained from education, background, or experience; or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests an undue level of complexity that the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform the mental process steps.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
• claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exceptions (abstract ideas) in claims 1-20 are not integrated into a practical application because:
•The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for performing the abstract ideas merely invoke a computer as a tool.
•The data-gathering steps do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
•There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computer that is used as a tool for performing the abstract ideas
•The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to provide a medical measurement.
•The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computer to perform the abstract ideas. The claims do not apply the obtained measurements to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in a post-solution step.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Step 2B
The additional elements are identified as follows: “(S1) using a transmitter and a receiver to establish a Wi-Fi space, wherein the transmitter is configured to emit a first wireless signal; (S2) moving a human body in the Wi-Fi space to receive a second wireless signal by the receiver, and extracting a CSI signal from the second wireless signal, wherein the second wireless signal is formed by the first wireless signal reflected from the human body;” in claim 1, “a transmitter configured to emit a first wireless signal; a receiver arranged relative to the transmitter to optionally receive a second wireless signal and extract a CSI signal from the second wireless signal, wherein the second wireless signal is formed by the first wireless signal reflected from a human body; and a processor arranged relative to the receiver and configured to… execute an instruction as the following:” in claim 6, “a wave filter” in claim 3, “a wave filter” in claim 8, “mark” and “tracking software” in claims 15 and 19.
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
Applicant’s Specification (Paragraph 0026) for the transmitter, receiver, and processor
The prior art provided by the Examiner in PTO-892 which disclose each of the elements as being known and conventional in the art elements;
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3. Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional elements as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry or 3) further recite additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art.
Claims 15 and 19 recites additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art
Claims 2-4, 7-9, 11-14, and 17-18 are steps that are also abstract as a mental process through additional data gathering or analysis
Claims 5, 10, 16, and 20 are also abstract through recitation of a mathematical concept
Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mohapatra et al. (US 2017/0354349).
Regarding claim 1, Mohapatra teaches a method for health surveillance using Wi-Fi to quantify gait parameter (Abstract), comprising:
(S1) using a transmitter and a receiver to establish a Wi-Fi space, wherein the transmitter is configured to emit a first wireless signal (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 0040-0041; “For example, referring to FIG. 1, one endpoint can be a WiFi access point (AP) 102 and the other can be any WiFi-equipped device 106 such as a desktop computer or a smart TV. The two endpoints are used to collect the CSI data”);
(S2) moving a human body in the Wi-Fi space to receive a second wireless signal by the receiver, and extracting a CSI signal from the second wireless signal, wherein the second wireless signal is formed by the first wireless signal reflected from the human body (Paragraph 0052; “Distant multipath signal propagation noise is caused by reception of a strong signal due to reflection from a distant object or person. For example, in the gait-related person-identification system described above, such reflections can be due to the person moving far away from the room where the CSI is collected.”);
(S3) preprocessing the CSI signal to obtain a denoised CSI signal (Paragraph 0041; “the captured CSI 202 is fed through a preprocessing module 204 to remove noise”);
(S4) performing a feature extraction on the denoised CSI signal to obtain a human body CSI gait parameter (Paragraph 0042; “The characteristics of the person's step and walk are then extracted in the form of features 213.”); and
(S5) calibrating the human body CSI gait parameter using a calibration equation to obtain a calibrated gait parameter (Paragraph 0042; “These features 213 feed into a gait signature construction module 214, which produces a gait signature 215. Gait signature 215 is then fed into a machine-learning classifier 216, which uses a machine-model that was trained on walk signatures for a group of people to classify signature 215 as belonging to a specific person in the group of people. This enables machine-learning classifier 216 to produce a person-identify prediction 218.”).
Regarding claim 6, Mohapatra teaches system for health surveillance using Wi-Fi to quantify gait parameter (Abstract), comprising:
a transmitter configured to emit a first wireless signal (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 0040-0041; “For example, referring to FIG. 1, one endpoint can be a WiFi access point (AP) 102 and the other can be any WiFi-equipped device 106 such as a desktop computer or a smart TV. The two endpoints are used to collect the CSI data”);
a receiver arranged relative to the transmitter to optionally receive a second wireless signal and extract a CSI signal from the second wireless signal, wherein the second wireless signal is formed by the first wireless signal reflected from a human body (Figures 1-2; Paragraphs 0040-0041; “For example, referring to FIG. 1, one endpoint can be a WiFi access point (AP) 102 and the other can be any WiFi-equipped device 106 such as a desktop computer or a smart TV. The two endpoints are used to collect the CSI data”; Paragraph 0052; “Distant multipath signal propagation noise is caused by reception of a strong signal due to reflection from a distant object or person. For example, in the gait-related person-identification system described above, such reflections can be due to the person moving far away from the room where the CSI is collected.”); and
a processor arranged relative to the receiver and configured to receive the CSI signal and execute an instruction (Paragraphs 0033-0034; Claim 21) as the following:
(SA) preprocessing the CSI signal to obtain a denoised CSI signal (Paragraph 0041; “the captured CSI 202 is fed through a preprocessing module 204 to remove noise”);
(SB) performing a feature extraction on the denoised CSI signal to obtain a human body CSI gait parameter (Paragraph 0042; “The characteristics of the person's step and walk are then extracted in the form of features 213.”); and
(SC) calibrating the human body CSI gait parameter to obtain a calibrated gait parameter using a calibration equation (Paragraph 0042; “These features 213 feed into a gait signature construction module 214, which produces a gait signature 215. Gait signature 215 is then fed into a machine-learning classifier 216, which uses a machine-model that was trained on walk signatures for a group of people to classify signature 215 as belonging to a specific person in the group of people. This enables machine-learning classifier 216 to produce a person-identify prediction 218.”).
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 2020/0202117).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a method for health surveillance using Wi-Fi to quantify gait parameter (Abstract), comprising:
(S1) using a transmitter and a receiver to establish a Wi-Fi space, wherein the transmitter is configured to emit a first wireless signal (Figure 1A; Paragraph 0094; “a wireless signal (signal) transmitted between a Type 1 heterogeneous wireless device (e.g. wireless transmitter, TX) and a Type 2 heterogeneous wireless device (e.g. wireless receiver, RX) in a venue through the channel”);
(S2) moving a human body in the Wi-Fi space to receive a second wireless signal by the receiver, and extracting a CSI signal from the second wireless signal, wherein the second wireless signal is formed by the first wireless signal reflected from the human body (Figure 1A; Paragraph 0094; “The channel may be impacted by an expression (e.g. motion, movement, expression, and/or change in position/pose/shape/expression) of an object in the venue. A characteristics and/or a spatial-temporal information (STI, e.g. motion information) of the object and/or of the motion of the object may be monitored based on the TSCI.”);
(S3) preprocessing the CSI signal (step 1504) to obtain a denoised CSI signal (Paragraph 0196; “preprocessing” and “denoising”);
(S4) performing a feature extraction on the denoised CSI signal to obtain a human body CSI gait parameter (1514; Paragraph 0320; “Then gait related features are extracted at operation 1514 from the gait cycle”); and
(S5) calibrating the human body CSI gait parameter using a calibration equation to obtain a calibrated gait parameter (1516; Paragraph 0320; “At operation 1516, the gait is recognized based on the extracted gait features. For example, by comparing the gait features with features stored in a database, a user identity is determined for the user moving with the gait.”).
Regarding claim 6, Wu teaches a system for health surveillance using Wi-Fi to quantify gait parameter (Abstract), comprising:
a transmitter configured to emit a first wireless signal (Figure 1A; Paragraph 0094; “a wireless signal (signal) transmitted between a Type 1 heterogeneous wireless device (e.g. wireless transmitter, TX) and a Type 2 heterogeneous wireless device (e.g. wireless receiver, RX) in a venue through the channel”);
a receiver arranged relative to the transmitter to optionally receive a second wireless signal and extract a CSI signal from the second wireless signal, wherein the second wireless signal is formed by the first wireless signal reflected from a human body (Figure 1A; Paragraph 0094; “a wireless signal (signal) transmitted between a Type 1 heterogeneous wireless device (e.g. wireless transmitter, TX) and a Type 2 heterogeneous wireless device (e.g. wireless receiver, RX) in a venue through the channel”; Paragraph 0094; “The channel may be impacted by an expression (e.g. motion, movement, expression, and/or change in position/pose/shape/expression) of an object in the venue. A characteristics and/or a spatial-temporal information (STI, e.g. motion information) of the object and/or of the motion of the object may be monitored based on the TSCI.”); and
a processor arranged relative to the receiver and configured to receive the CSI signal and execute an instruction as (Paragraph 0066-0069 and 0094) the following
(SA) preprocessing the CSI signal to obtain a denoised CSI signal (step 1504; Paragraph 0196; “preprocessing” and “denoising”);
(SB) performing a feature extraction on the denoised CSI signal to obtain a human body CSI gait parameter (1514; Paragraph 0320; “Then gait related features are extracted at operation 1514 from the gait cycle”); and
(SC) calibrating the human body CSI gait parameter to obtain a calibrated gait parameter using a calibration equation (1516; Paragraph 0320; “At operation 1516, the gait is recognized based on the extracted gait features. For example, by comparing the gait features with features stored in a database, a user identity is determined for the user moving with the gait.”).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2020/0202117).
Regarding claim 2, Wu teaches wherein in the step (Si), a line of sight AB is formed between a point A on the transmitter and a point B on the receiver (Figure 1A), but is silent on and 5 m≥AB≥1 m. The applicant's specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of 5 m≥AB≥1 m, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the 5 m≥AB≥1 m as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Claim(s) 3, 8, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2020/0202117) in view of Ma et al. (“WiFi Sensing with Channel State Information: A Survey”; Reference U on PTO-892; January 2019).
Regarding claim 3, Wu is silent on the use of a wave filter. Ma teaches wherein the step (S3) further comprises: using a wave filter to filter a high frequency noise in the CSI signal (Table 2 in Section 3.1 Noise Reduction; wavelet filter for outliers removal). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wu with Ma because using wave filters to remove noise is known in the art (Section 3.1 of Ma) and thus would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8, Wu is silent on the use of a wave filter. Ma teaches wherein the step (SA) further comprises: using a wave filter to filter a high frequency noise in the CSI signal (Table 2 in Section 3.1 Noise Reduction; wavelet filter for outliers removal); and performing a principal component analysis (PCA) on the CSI signal, thereby extracting a human body gait related signal from the CSI signal (Section 3.3 Signal Extraction; Table 4; Section 3.3.2 Signal Compression.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wu with Ma because using wave filters to remove noise is known in the art (Section 3.1 of Ma) and thus would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 12, Wu is silent on the use of PCA. Ma teaches wherein the step (S3) further comprises: performing a principal component analysis (PCA) on the CSI signal, thereby extracting a human body gait related signal from the CSI signal (Section 3.3 Signal Extraction; Table 4; Section 3.3.2 Signal Compression.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wu with Ma because PCA is known in the art for signal processing (Section 3.3 Signal Extraction; Table 4; Section 3.3.2 Signal Compression of Ma) and thus would yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13, Wu is silent on the use of STFT. Ma teaches wherein the step (S4) further comprises: performing a short-time Fourier transform (STFT) on the denoised CSI signal to obtain a spectrogram (Section 3.2 Signal Transform; Table 3; Section 3.3.1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wu with Ma because using STFT is known in the art for signal processing (Section 3.2 Signal Transform; Table 3; Section 3.3.1) and thus would yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 4, 9, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2020/0202117) in view of Jayarajah et al. (“Fusing WiFi and Video Sensing for Accurate Group Detection in Indoor Spaces”; Reference V on PTO-892; June 2016)
Regarding claim 4, Wu is silent on the fitting. Jayarajah teaches wherein the calibration equation is obtained by a method comprising: fitting the human body CSI gait parameter with a human body actual gait parameter (Section 3 and Section 4 Fusion of WiFi-Based and Video-Based Group Detection). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wu with Jayarajah because it enables low latency and high accuracy (Abstract of Jayarajah).
Regarding claim 9, Wu is silent on the fitting. Jayarajah teaches wherein the calibration equation is obtained by a method comprising: fitting the human body CSI gait parameter with a human body actual gait parameter (Section 3 and Section 4 Fusion of WiFi-Based and Video-Based Group Detection). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wu with Jayarajah because it enables low latency and high accuracy (Abstract of Jayarajah).
Regarding claim 15, Wu is silent on the mark and tracking software. Jayarajah teaches wherein the human body actual gait parameter is obtained by a method comprising: equipping a mark on a first body part of the human body and tracking the mark using a tracking software, thereby obtaining a first actual walking velocity curve (Section 3 and Section 4 Fusion of WiFi-Based and Video-Based Group Detection). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wu with Jayarajah because it enables low latency and high accuracy (Abstract of Jayarajah).
Regarding claim 19, Wu is silent on the mark and tracking software. Jayarajah teaches wherein the human body actual gait parameter is obtained by a method comprising: equipping a mark on a first body part of the human body and tracking the mark using a tracking software, thereby obtaining a first actual walking velocity curve (Section 3 and Section 4 Fusion of WiFi-Based and Video-Based Group Detection). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wu with Jayarajah because it enables low latency and high accuracy (Abstract of Jayarajah).
Claim(s) 7, 11, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2020/0202117) in view of Korany et al. (“XModal-ID: Using WiFi for Through-Wall Person Identification from Candidate Video Footage”; Reference W on PTO-892; October 2019).
Regarding claim 7, Wu teaches wherein a line of sight AB is formed between a point A on the transmitter and a point B on the receiver (Figure 1A) but is silent on and 5 m≥AB≥1 m.
The applicant's specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of 5 m≥AB≥1 m, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the 5 m≥AB≥1 m as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Wu is silent on the angle.
Korany teaches wherein in the step (S2), an angle θ is formed between a moving direction of the human body and a perpendicular bisector of the line of sight AB (Figures 3b and 4), but is silent on and θ ≤ 45°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wu with Korany because it provides a common setup for wireless signal propagation and thus would yield predictable results.
The applicant's specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of θ ≤ 45°, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the θ ≤ 45° as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 11, Wu is silent on the angle.
Korany teaches wherein in the step (S2), an angle θ is formed between a moving direction of the human body and a perpendicular bisector of the line of sight AB (Figures 3b and 4), but is silent on and θ ≤ 45°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wu with Korany because it provides a common setup for wireless signal propagation and thus would yield predictable results.
The applicant's specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of θ ≤ 45°, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the θ ≤ 45° as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 17, Wu is silent on the angle.
Korany teaches wherein an angle θ is formed between a moving direction of the human body and a perpendicular bisector of the line of sight AB (Figures 3b and 4), but is silent on and θ ≤ 45°.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wu with Korany because it provides a common setup for wireless signal propagation and thus would yield predictable results.
The applicant's specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of θ ≤ 45°, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the θ ≤ 45° as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Claim(s) 5, 10, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2020/0202117) in view of Jayarajah et al. (“Fusing WiFi and Video Sensing for Accurate Group Detection in Indoor Spaces”; Reference V on PTO-892; June 2016) in further view of Tian et al. (“A People-Counting and Speed-Estimation System Using Wi-Fi Signals”; Reference X on PTO-892; May 2021).
Regarding claim 5, Wu is silent on Vconection=1.305 Vcsi+0.006325. Tian teaches wherein the calibration equation is obtained by a method comprising: establishing the correlation between the human body CSI gait parameter and the human body actual gait parameter using a linear regression to obtain the calibration equation (Section 2.5 Determination of the Velocity); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wu with Tian because linear regression is a known technique in the art and thus would yield predictable results.
While Tian does not disclose the specific equation: Vconection=1.305 Vcsi+0.006325, wherein the Vcsi is a human body walking velocity obtained by analyzing the CSI signal, the Vconection is a calibrated human body walking velocity obtained by calibrating the Vcsi, thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yakura in view of Tian since achieving said equation would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the conventionally used linear regression and through routine experimentation of finding the desired constants.
The applicant's specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of the values 1.305 and 0.006325, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the values 1.305 and 0.006325 in a normal linear fitting equation as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 10, Wu is silent on Vconection=1.305 Vcsi+0.006325. Tian teaches wherein the calibration equation is obtained by a method comprising: establishing the correlation between the human body CSI gait parameter and the human body actual gait parameter using a linear regression to obtain the calibration equation: (Section 2.5 Determination of the Velocity); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wu with Tian because linear regression is a known technique in the art and thus would yield predictable results.
While Tian does not disclose the specific equation: Vconection=1.305 Vcsi+0.006325, wherein the Vcsiis a human body walking velocity obtained by analyzing the CSI signal, the Vconection is a calibrated human body walking velocity obtained by calibrating the Vcsi, thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yakura in view of Tian since achieving said equation would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the conventionally used linear regression and through routine experimentation of finding the desired constants.
The applicant's specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of the values 1.305 and 0.006325, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the values 1.305 and 0.006325 in a normal linear fitting equation as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 16, Wu is silent on Vconection=1.305 Vcsi+0.006325. Tian teaches wherein the calibration equation is obtained by a method comprising: establishing the correlation between the human body CSI gait parameter and the human body actual gait parameter using a linear regression to obtain the calibration equation: (Section 2.5 Determination of the Velocity); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wu with Tian because linear regression is a known technique in the art and thus would yield predictable results.
While Tian does not disclose the specific equiation: Vconection=1.305 Vcsi+0.006325, wherein the Vcsiis a human body walking velocity obtained by analyzing the CSI signal, the Vconection is a calibrated human body walking velocity obtained by calibrating the Vcsi, thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yakura in view of Tian since achieving said equation would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the conventionally used linear regression and through routine experimentation of finding the desired constants.
The applicant's specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of the values 1.305 and 0.006325, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the values 1.305 and 0.006325 in a normal linear fitting equation as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Regarding claim 20, Wu is silent on Vconection=1.305 Vcsi+0.006325. Tian teaches wherein the calibration equation is obtained by a method comprising: establishing the correlation between the human body CSI gait parameter and the human body actual gait parameter using a linear regression to obtain the calibration equation (Section 2.5 Determination of the Velocity); It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wu with Tian because linear regression is a known technique in the art and thus would yield predictable results.
While Tian does not disclose the specific equiation: Vconection=1.305 Vcsi+0.006325, wherein the Vcsiis a human body walking velocity obtained by analyzing the CSI signal, the Vconection is a calibrated human body walking velocity obtained by calibrating the Vcsi, thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Yakura in view of Tian since achieving said equation would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art using the conventionally used linear regression and through routine experimentation of finding the desired constants.
The applicant's specification provides no specifical reasoning or critical functionality for the use of the values 1.305 and 0.006325, thus claimed limitation is a design choice. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the values 1.305 and 0.006325 in a normal linear fitting equation as desired by the user as a matter of routine engineering design choice.
Claim(s) 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2020/0202117) in view of Ma et al. (“WiFi Sensing with Channel State Information: A Survey”; Reference U on PTO-892; January 2019) in further view of Korany et al. (“XModal-ID: Using WiFi for Through-Wall Person Identification from Candidate Video Footage”; Reference W on PTO-892; October 2019).
Regarding claim 14, Wu is silent on the contour of the spectrogram. Korany teaches wherein the step (S4) further comprises: tracking a high energy region in the spectrogram to form a trunk velocity contour on the spectrogram thereby obtaining the human body CSI gait parameter (Section 4.3 Spectrogram Generation Based on Measured Wireless Signals; Figure 5; Section 4.3.1 Spectrogram Segmentation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wu with Korany because it is a commonly-used time-frequency analysis method in the art (Section 4.3 of Korany) and thus would provide predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, Wu is silent on the use of STFT and the contour of the spectrogram. Korany teaches wherein the step (SB) further comprises: performing a short-time Fourier transform (STFT) on the denoised CSI signal to obtain a spectrogram (Section 4.3; “In STFT, a short moving window of length Twin is applied to s(t) and the Fourier Transform is applied to each instance of the moving window to estimate the frequency components, resulting in a signal spectrogram”); and tracking a high energy region in the spectrogram to form a trunk velocity contour on the spectrogram, thereby obtaining the human body CSI gait parameter (Section 4.3 Spectrogram Generation Based on Measured Wireless Signals; Figure 5; Section 4.3.1 Spectrogram Segmentation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Wu with Korany because it is a commonly-used time-frequency analysis method in the art (Section 4.3 of Korany) and thus would provide predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hu et al. (US 2024/0064691) and Satloff (US 2025/0220383)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)272-7706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-3PM EST.
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, JASON SIMS can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights