DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 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 “receiving, by one or more processors and using a radar sensor, sensor data by emitting a plurality of radar signals within a monitored environment associated with one or more tracking targets” which is indefinite because it appears to confuse cause and effect. Emitting radar signals does not cause the reception of sensor data. Rather, emitting radar signals merely allows the reflected radar signals to be received by the radar sensor. This logical contradiction creates confusion as to how the claim should be read. Claims 12 and 19 are similarly rejected, and dependent claims 2-11, 13-18, and 20 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “generating, by the one or more processors and using the radar sensor, movement data” which is indefinite, because it is unclear how the radar sensor itself can be used to generate movement data, i.e., after the radar sensor has already received the sensor data. In other words, does the radar sensor have some processing power in addition to the processor? Claims 12 and 19 are similarly rejected, and dependent claims 2-11, 13-18, and 20 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “(a) an entity signature definition and (b) one or more defined contextual attributes” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if the “entity signature definition” relates back to the previously recited “one or more tracking targets” or if the entity in question is separate from the targets. In other words, what is the entity signature definition and how does it related to the rest of the claim? The “defined contextual attributes are likewise rejected for lack of clarity. Claims 12 and 19 are similarly rejected, and dependent claims 2-11, 13-18, and 20 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “identifying, by the one or more processors, a triggering event based on a comparison between the plurality of sensor-based feature values and excursion event criteria” which is indefinite, because there is no indication from the claim what a triggering event is. Merely comparing two values does not necessarily trigger a condition, unless the comparison is performed in view of some desired condition or threshold. Furthermore, it is unclear how the triggering event can be based on a comparison with excursion event criteria when there is no indication from the claim one what excursion event criteria are, how excursion event criteria are obtained, and how excursion event criteria relate to the other elements of the claim. Claims 12 and 19 are similarly rejected, and dependent claims 2-11, 13-18, and 20 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “an excursion message that comprises (i) a device identifier” which is indefinite, because the recitation appears to assume the presence or correlation of some device in association with the aforementioned “one or more tracking targets”, yet there is no requirement that the tracking targets be a device, nor is there any other device recited in the claim. Therefore, there is not necessarily a device to be identified in the claim. Claims 12 and 19 are similarly rejected, and dependent claims 2-11, 13-18, and 20 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the plurality of radar signals is emitted at a reporting time interval” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if the emitting of the radar signals is one of the elements of the method of claim 1, such that it can be further modified in claim 2. In other words, is emitting the radar signals positively recited as being part of the method of claim 1? Or does said radar signal emission occur before the invention in claim 1 begins?
Claim 12 recites “A system comprising… one or more processors configured to: receive, using a radar sensor, sensor data…generate, using the radar sensor” which is indefinite for two reasons.
First, because the invention appears to rely entirely on the radar sensor for at least two of the capabilities of the processor. However, the radar sensor is not an element of the claimed invention and is therefore outside the scope of the claim. In other words, the processor does not appear to be claimed to receive sensor data, as the radar sensor is doing that. Therefore, it is unclear whether and to what extent a capability or limitation of the radar sensor affects the patentable weight of the claim. Claim 19 is similarly rejected, and dependent claims 13-18 and 20 fail to cure the deficiency.
Second, because it is unclear if the claimed processor is somehow inherently capable of executing the claimed steps, i.e., by nature of its design, or whether the processor is only capable of executing the claimed steps when executing some unclaimed instructions or program from the communicatively coupled memory. Dependent claims 13-18 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the plurality of radar signals is emitted at a reporting time interval” which is indefinite, because it appears to be written more as a method step than as a structural limitation of the claimed system or a functional limitation of the claimed elements of the system, the only claimed elements being memory and processors. Therefore, it is unclear whether, and to what extent, a limitation regarding how often radar signals are emitted serves to further limit the claimed invention.
Claim 20 recites “wherein the radar sensor is configured with an ambient sensing device and the excursion message further comprises a device identifier of the ambient sensing device” which is indefinite, because the radar sensor is entirely outside the scope of the claimed one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media. Therefore, it is unclear whether and to what extent a limitation drawn solely to the radar sensor affects the patentable weight of the dependent claim.
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