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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III in the reply filed on 08/06/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 and 23-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups I-II and IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/06/2026.
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 18-19 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 16, page 8, line 5, “the room” should read “a room of the at least one room”.
In claims 18-19 and 22, “the indoor surface” should read “the at least one indoor surface”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Anderholm et al (US 20190096220), hereinafter Anderholm.
Regarding claim 16, Anderholm teaches an indoor event detecting system (300)(1000) (Abstract; “Radar system 300 may be used for a number of purposes, including identifying the presence of a person in a location, such as a dressing room, a prison cell, or ATM vestibule, by detecting biometric indicators such as breathing or heartbeats.” [0148] Figs. 3A-B, 10, 11A, 23-24.27-28), comprising:
at least one indoor radar device (250) (302A-B) (“The radar system 300 may include two radar devices 302A and 302B” [0139]) configured to be disposed on at least one indoor surface (1105) of at least one room (“Opposite enclosure is back plate 1004, typically a flat plate to meet with a surface for mounting radar system 300.” [0145]; Fig. 10) and comprising at least one housing outer surface (1002), which comprises an upper inclined surface (“Referring now to FIG. 10, therein illustrated is an embodiment of an example of a radar system 300. Radar system 300 includes enclosure 1002, to protect the internal elements of radar system 300. Enclosure 1002 is made of material transparent to radar signals. Opposite enclosure is back plate 1004, typically a flat plate to meet with a surface for mounting radar system 300." [0145] “As shown in FIG. 11A, radar system 300, when mounted to wall 1105 may be positioned to provide a detection area defined by a semicircle 1110 bisected by the meeting between wall 1105 and floor 1115." [0146]);
at least one door-closed sensing device (450) configured to be disposed in the at least one room (“door sensor 450 may be configured to communicate directly with control module 325, in which case control module 325 may receive the status of door 500 directly from door sensor 450...If the status of door 500 is determined not to be set to open (i.e. door 500 is closed), then the process returns to step 703.[0201]; Figs. 27-28); and
a control center (325) wiredly or wirelessly communicatively connected to the at least one indoor radar device and the at least one door-closed sensing device (“The abnormal usage detection system 1000 includes one or more presence detectors 250, such as radar-based devices, and a door sensor 450.” [0190]; “door sensor 450 may be configured to communicate directly with control module 325,” [0201]; Figs. 27-28);
wherein the indoor event detecting system is configured to:
detect whether a door of the room starts to be in a door-closed state operated inside the room by the door-closed sensing device (“door sensor 450 may be configured to communicate directly with control module 325, in which case control module 325 may receive the status of door 500 directly from door sensor 450...If the status of door 500 is determined not to be set to open (i.e. door 500 is closed), then the process returns to step 703.” [0201]; Figs. 27-28);
perform an occupancy detection to determine whether there is a detected target in the room (“identifying the presence of a person in a location” [0148]); seen in Fig. 25) and
determine whether an overtime occupancy condition is satisfied (704, 707-708) by the indoor radar device when it is detected that the door starts to be in the door-closed state (“A time limit can be used to determine when the Room has been occupied longer than expected and may require assistance from employees. A colour, for example, red can be used to indicate to a user whether a Room has been occupied beyond a reasonable time. For example, as shown in FIG. 23, Rooms 02R, 05R, 08R, and 09R are occupied; Rooms 01R, 03R, 04R, 06R, 07R, 10R, 11R, and 12R are not. Room 02R has been occupied for 5 minutes and 21 seconds;" [0179]; Fig. 28);
perform a vital sign detection to determine whether a dangerous condition is satisfied by the indoor radar device when it is detected that the door starts to be in the door-closed state (“Radar system 300 may be used for a number of purposes, including identifying the presence of a person in a location, such as a dressing room, a prison cell, or ATM vestibule, by detecting biometric indicators such as breathing or heartbeats...Radar system 300 can detect people not actively moving, only breathing and with a heartbeat, and thereby determine the presence of a sleeping person.” [0148]); and
determine that an indoor dangerous event exists in the room (“an erratic heartbeat” [0153]) and generate an alarm when at least one of the overtime occupancy condition and the dangerous condition is satisfied (“The biometric signals received can also be used to detect if the person is asleep or not, or is undergoing a health emergency (for example has an erratic heartbeat, which if detected could be used to alert emergency personnel), and can be used to detect persons not otherwise moving." [0153]).
Regarding claim 17, Anderholm teaches the indoor event detecting system of claim 16, wherein the room is one of a toilet room, a bathroom and a dressing room (“The location may comprise one or more of: an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) vestibule; a changing room; a bathroom; and a locker room.” [0019]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderholm as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Ben Atar et al (US 20250370121), hereinafter, Ben Atar.
Regarding claim 18, Anderholm teaches the indoor event detecting system of claim 16, wherein the indoor surface is a wall surface (1105) of the room or a surface in the room being not parallel to a floor (Seen in Fig. 11A), the indoor radar device further comprises a first antenna array (906) (“Processor 902 receives input from radar transceiver 906, which may be an Ultra-Wideband (UWB) transceiver” [0144]; Fig. 10), the housing outer surface further comprises a first emitting surface (1002) (“Enclosure 1002 is made of material transparent to radar signals.” [0145]; Fig. 10), the first antenna array is adjacent to or disposed on the first emitting surface (Fig. 10), the first emitting surface is configured to face a heart of the detected target (“On reflection from a person, a radar signal acquires specific biometrical modulation, which does not occur in reflections from inanimate objects. This modulation is produced by heartbeats,” [0149] Fig. 11A), and a distance between the indoor radar device and the floor is greater than 70 cm (““As shown in FIG. 11A, radar system 300, when mounted to wall 1105 may be positioned to provide a detection area defined by a semicircle 1110 bisected by the meeting between wall 1105 and floor 1115." [0146]. The distance is greater than 70 cm in Fig. 11A because the sensor 300 is near the ceiling of the room).
Anderholm does not teach that the indoor radar device further comprises a first antenna array.
However, in the radar-based systems field of endeavor, Ben Atar discloses radar apparatus, system, and method, which is analogous art. Ben Atar teaches that the indoor radar device further comprises a first antenna array (701) (“as shown in FIG. 7, a radar MIMO arrangement may include a transmit antenna array 701 and a receive antenna array 702.” [0164]).
Therefore, based on Ben Atar’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Anderholm to employ the indoor radar device that further comprises a first antenna array, as taught by Ben Atar, in order to facilitate monitoring wider area inside the room.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderholm as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Mitchell et al (US20190309564), hereinafter, Mitchell.
Regarding claim 22, Anderholm teaches the indoor event detecting system of claim 16, wherein the door comprises a driving side and an open side (seen in Fig. 26).
Anderholm does not teach that a door lock assembly of the room comprises a first lock element and a second lock element, the first lock element is disposed on the open side, and the second lock element is disposed on the indoor surface; the door-closed sensing device is configured to be disposed at at least one of the first lock element and the second lock element to detect whether the door is in the door-closed state.
However, in the indoor radar-based systems field of endeavor, Mitchell discloses a door latch with integrated radar module, which is analogous art. Mitchell teaches that a door lock assembly (22) of the room (Figs. 2-4 and 10) comprises a first lock element (46) and a second lock element (26), the first lock element is disposed on the open side, and the second lock element is disposed on the indoor surface (12) (“as also shown in FIG. 2, the latch 22 defines a fish mouth opening 46 that is configured to receive a striker (not shown) that is fixed to the body 12 of the vehicle 10 in order for the latch 22 to engage the striker for securing the door 14 in a closed position.” [0051]; “FIG. 4 shows an example of the electronic latch 22 ... The electronic latch 22 includes a latch housing 24 holding a latching mechanism 25 that selectively engages and retains the striker 26, which is fixed to the body 12 of the vehicle 10, for latching and/or locking the door 14 in a closed position relative to the body 12 of the vehicle 10.” [0052]; Fig. 10);
the door-closed sensing device (“a hall sensor” [0053]) is configured to be disposed at at least one of the first lock element and the second lock element to detect whether the door is in the door-closed state (“the e-latch controller 170 and/or other components on the e-latch PCB 66 may monitor switches, or for example hall sensors, to determine if the door 14 is opened, closed, or ajar, and if the electronic latch 22 is in a locked or an unlocked condition. For example, controller 170 may monitor a hall sensor configured to detect the position of the latching mechanism 25, illustratively such as ratchet for example, including a primary striker capture position indicating the door 14 is in a fully closed position” [0053]; Figs. 1-4 and 10).
Therefore, based on Mitchell’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Anderholm to employ a door lock assembly of the room that comprises a first lock element and a second lock element, the first lock element that is disposed on the open side, and the second lock element that is disposed on the indoor surface; the door-closed sensing device that is configured to be disposed at at least one of the first lock element and the second lock element to detect whether the door is in the door-closed state, as taught by Mitchell, in order to facilitate monitoring the state of the door and to prevent an unauthorized entry.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXEI BYKHOVSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1556. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Pascal Bui Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXEI BYKHOVSKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights