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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the specification, while being enabling for operating a radar system in accordance with up to two modes simultaneously (as shown in Figure 5-3) does not reasonably provide enablement for operating a radar system in accordance with a very high number of modes (e.g., one hundred or one thousand modes) in a simultaneous or overlapping manner, as encompassed by the claims. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Specifically, the claims do not have an upper limit on the number of modes the radar system is configured to operate in accordance with, while the specification only appears to contemplate using no more than two modes simultaneously, causing there to be a large difference between the scope of the disclosed invention and the scope of the claims. Claims 10 and 19 are likewise rejected, and dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 fail to cure the deficiency.
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) 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 “configuring a radar system to operate in accordance with one or more modes that satisfy the first and second radar-sensing performance requirements” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if: 1) all of the modes must satisfy both sets of performance requirements, or if different modes can satisfy different requirements, and 2) if all of the modes may happen simultaneously, sequentially, or in an overlapping manner. Claims 10 and 19 are likewise rejected, and dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 10 recites “to provide radar sensing for a set of the multiple applications that are in the active state” which is indefinite, because it requires providing radar sensing for applications that are in an active state without requiring, or providing antecedent basis for, a set of applications that are in the active state. In other words, the claim is presupposing or assuming that some of the applications will be active, without actually claiming it explicitly. Dependent claims 11-18 fail to cure the deficiency.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-4, 8-10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Giusti et al. (US 2020/0410072 A1), hereinafter Giusti.
Regarding claim 1, Giusti discloses a method performed by middleware (para. [0053], regarding applications and/or an operating system (not shown) implemented as computer-readable instructions on the computer-readable media 204 can be executed by the computer processors 202 to provide some or all of the functionalities described herein), the method comprising:
accepting a first request from a first application, the first request comprising first radar-sensing performance requirements for a first radar-sensing use case provided by the first application (para. [0067], regarding the power manager 320 can switch between utilizing the lower-power processor for low-level analysis (e.g., implementing the idle mode, detecting motion, determining a location of a user, or monitoring the environment) and the higher-power processor for situations in which high-fidelity or accurate radar data is requested by the awareness manager 106 (e.g., for implementing the aware mode, the engaged mode, or the active mode, gesture recognition or user orientation));
accepting a second request from a second application, the second request comprising second radar-sensing performance requirements for a second radar-sensing use case provided by the second application (para. [0045], regarding when the awareness manager 106 detects the action that indicates the intent to interact, the awareness manager 106 can prepare the authentication system 118 by causing the camera to enter a state in which it can capture an image (e.g., a camera “warm up” process that prepares the camera hardware and any associated software or other programs that are used to capture images)); and
configuring a radar system (radar system 104; fig. 1) to operate in accordance with one or more modes that satisfy the first and second radar-sensing performance requirements of the first and second requests (para. [0043], regarding awareness manager 106 may maintain the electronic device 102 in the aware mode for a selectable and adjustable time duration without such a user action (e.g., 60, 30, or 10 seconds) and then transition back to the dormant mode, even if the user remains in the recognition zone).
Regarding claim 2, Giusti discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses the invention further comprising: receiving radar data from the radar system based on the radar system operating in accordance with the one or more modes (para. [0050], regarding assume that the user 112 walked up to the electronic device 102 and reached toward it, causing the electronic device 102 to transition from the dormant mode to the aware mode and then (optionally) to the engaged mode); passing at least a first portion of the radar data to the first application based on the first request (para. [0065], regarding the power manager 320 dynamically switches between different power modes such that response delay and power consumption are managed together based on the activity within the environment); and passing at least a second portion of the radar data to the second application based on the second request (para. [0067], regarding situations in which high-fidelity or accurate radar data is requested by the awareness manager 106 (e.g., for implementing the aware mode, the engaged mode, or the active mode, gesture recognition or user orientation)).
Regarding claim 3, Giusti discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein: the first radar-sensing performance requirements differ from the second radar-sensing performance requirements (see again para. [0067]); and the method further comprises: determining a first mode of the one or more modes that satisfies the first and second radar-sensing performance requirements (see again para. [0067]); and configuring the radar system to operate in accordance with the first mode (see again para. [0066-0067], regarding both the power manager 320 and the awareness manager 106 requiring the active mode for gesture recognition).
Regarding claim 4, Giusti discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein: the first radar-sensing performance requirements differ from the second radar-sensing performance requirements (see again para. [0067]); and the method further comprises: determining a first mode of the one or more modes that satisfies the first radar-sensing performance requirements (see again para. [0067]); determining a second mode of the one or more modes that satisfies the second radar-sensing performance requirements (see again para. [0067]); and configuring the radar system to operate in accordance with the first mode and the second mode (para. [0067], regarding the power manager 320 can switch between utilizing the lower-power processor for low-level analysis (e.g., implementing the idle mode, detecting motion, determining a location of a user, or monitoring the environment) and the higher-power processor for situations in which high-fidelity or accurate radar data is requested by the awareness manager 106).
Regarding claim 8, Giusti discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses the invention further comprising: accepting a third request from a third application, the third request comprising third radar-sensing performance requirements for a third radar-sensing use case provided by the third application (see again para. [0067]); and configuring the radar system to operate in accordance with one or more other modes that satisfy the first, second, and third requests (see again para. [0067]).
Regarding claim 9, Giusti discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the configuring of the radar system comprises configuring multiple radar systems to operate in accordance with the one or more of the modes to satisfy the first and second requests (para. [0055], regarding the radar system 104 may also cooperate with other radar systems 104 that are within an external environment to implement a bistatic radar, a multistatic radar, or a network radar).
Regarding claim 10, Giusti discloses a method performed by middleware that is coupled between a radar system and multiple applications (see again para. [0053]), the method comprising:
receiving multiple requests from the multiple applications, each application of the multiple applications capable of being in an active state or an inactive state with regard to utilizing radar sensing provided by the radar system (see again paras. [0045] and [0067]); and
dynamically configuring the radar system to operate in accordance with at least one mode to provide radar sensing for a set of the multiple applications that are in the active state, the at least one mode satisfying a set of the multiple requests that correspond with the set of the multiple applications (see again para. [0043]).
Regarding claim 18, Giusti discloses the invention in claim 10, and further discloses the invention further comprising: receiving a request of the multiple requests from an application of the multiple applications that is in the inactive state, the request indicating a condition for the application to transition to the active state (para. [0050], regarding assume that the user 112 walked up to the electronic device 102 and reached toward it, causing the electronic device 102 to transition from the dormant mode to the aware mode and then (optionally) to the engaged mode); receiving radar data from the radar system based on the radar system operating in accordance with the at least one mode (see again para. [0050]); and causing the application to transition from the inactive state to the active state responsive to the radar data indicating occurrence of the condition (see again para. [0050]).
Regarding claim 19, Giusti discloses a computer-readable storage medium (see para. [0005]) comprising instructions that, responsive to execution by a processor, implement middleware configured to: accept a first request from a first application, the first request comprising first radar-sensing performance requirements for a first radar-sensing use case provided by the first application; accept a second request from a second application, the second request comprising second radar-sensing performance requirements for a second radar-sensing use case provided by the second application; and configure a radar system to operate in accordance with one or more modes that satisfy the first and second radar-sensing performance requirements of the first and second requests (see rejection of claim 1 detailed hereinabove).
Regarding claim 20, Giusi discloses the invention in claim 19, and further discloses wherein the middleware is configured to: determine a first mode of the one or more modes that satisfies the first and second radar-sensing performance requirements, the first radar-sensing performance requirements being different from the second radar-sensing performance requirements; and configure the radar system to operate in accordance with the first mode (see rejection of claim 3 detailed hereinabove).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 11-17 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. Specifically, the prior art of record does not appear to teach the combined limitations of said dependent 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