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 § 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US 20200196091 A1) in view of Silverstein et al. (US 20170328997 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong discloses [Note: what Jeong fails to disclose is strike-through]
A system for detecting objects (see Abstract, “The present disclosure relates to an indoor device-free human counting method and a system for the method.”), the system comprising:
a sensor for detecting at least one of a phase shift or an amplitude change (see paragraph 0006, “An indoor device-free human counting system according to the present disclosure comprises a transmitter and a receiver forming a radio link through which a radio signal is transmitted”), wherein the at least one of a phase shift or an amplitude change indicates one or more objects in an area (see paragraph 0047, “During this process, an amount of attenuation and an amount of temporal change of a received radio signal are measured in terms of amplitude values of a received radio signal in an indoor space where humans are present and amplitude values of the received radio signal when human are absent.”); and
a count determination device, wherein the count determination device comprises at least one non-transitory storage device; and at least one processing device coupled to the at least one non-transitory storage device (see Fig. 1, elements 10 and 20; paragraph 0032, “The first radio signal measurement and collection unit 10 analyzes strength of a radio signal received through the receiver 12, calculates an amount of attenuation of the received radio signal including channel state information (CSI) and an amount of change of the received radio signal over time, and stores the calculation result into a memory.”; paragraph 0033, “The second radio signal measurement and collection unit 20 analyzes strength of a radio signal received through the receiver 20, calculates an amount of attenuation of the received radio signal and an amount of change of the received radio signal over time, and stores the calculation result into the memory.”), wherein the at least one processing device is configured to:
receive at least one detection data packet from the sensor, wherein the at least one detection data packet comprises the at least one of the phase shift or the amplitude change (see Fig. 3, S1 and S5 measure and collect received radio signals);
determine an estimated object count based on the at least one detection data packet, wherein the estimated object count indicates a number of distinct objects in the area (see Fig. 3, step S4 and validation phase S5-S7; paragraph 0050, “At this time, each probability distribution may be calculated for the cases where one, three, or n (where n is a natural number) humans are present on the radio link 32.”; paragraph 0056, “The seventh step S7 selects a probability distribution showing the highest probability among the probability distributions obtained in the learning phase and determines the number of humans within the first Fresnel zone of the radio link 32.”);
compare the estimated object count to an object count cap, wherein the object count cap is based on a desired confidence level of the system (see paragraph 0056, “In other words, the features extracted from the calculation result of the sixth step S6 are compared with the probability distributions already calculated in the learning phase and input data, and the number of humans showing the highest probability is determined based on the comparison result.”; see Fig. 3, results from the validation phase are compared to results from the learning phase to determine number of humans present based on the highest probability);
based on the comparison of the estimated object count to the object count cap, determine a display object count for the area, wherein the display object count is less than or equal to the object count cap (see paragraph 0009, “estimating the number of humans present on the radio link by selecting a case with the highest probability among probability distributions obtained by the learning unit from the calculation result, and outputting human counting information including the number of humans.”); and
Silverstein discloses
a sensor for detecting at least one of a phase shift or an amplitude change in modulated pulses from a pulse generator (see Figs. 14B and 14C; paragraph 0322, “FIGS. 14B and 14C illustrate block diagrams of multi-dimensional radar systems. FIG. 14B shows a multi-dimensional radar system with radar control module 1410, a radio transmitter 1412, and radio receivers 1414 and 1416. In some implementations, the radio transmitter 1412 and the radio receivers 1414 and 1416 each include an antenna configured for one or more radio frequency bands. For example, the transmitter 1412 emits a radio signal, such as a tone or pulse (e.g., a 77 GHz tone). The receivers 1414 and 1416 receive radio waves corresponding to the emitted radio signal. The control module 1410 compares the timing and phase of the received radio waves with the emitted radio signal to determine the location and/or motion of various detected objects. Differences between the radio waves received at receiver 1414 and the radio waves received at receiver 1416 are analyzed to determine the location/motion of the detected objects with greater accuracy and/or precision.”)
cause a rendering of the display object count to a user interface (see paragraph 0122, “User interface module 622 for providing and displaying a user interface in which settings, captured data, and/or other data for one or more devices (e.g., smart devices 204 in smart home environment 100) can be configured and/or viewed”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Silverstein into the invention of Jeong. Both Jeong and Silverstein are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose radar systems and methods for detecting objects and occupants in a room. Jeong discloses a radar system that can detect changes in amplitude caused by detected objects, a counting device with processing and storage components, receiving detection data that contains an amplitude change, estimating an object count based on the received data, comparing the estimate to an object count cap, and determining a display count based on the comparison; however, Jeong fails to disclose the sensor operating with pulses and displaying object count to a user interface. These features are disclosed by Silverstein where the radio waves can be emitted as pulses and a user interface module can be used to view captured data. Jeong discloses calculating a desired value such as a display object count, but fails to explicitly disclose displaying the values on a user interface. The combination of Jeong and Silverstein would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to save energy by having the radar system emit pulses instead of continuous waves, and display the radar system results in a convenient way for a user.
Regarding claim 2, Jeong discloses
The system of Claim 1, wherein the object count cap is at least two objects (see paragraph 0050, “The fourth step S4 calculates the average and variation of the two features of the received radio signal by using the bootstrapped data and calculates a probability distribution by approximating Eqs. 1 and 2 below to the normal distribution. At this time, each probability distribution may be calculated for the cases where one, three, or n (where n is a natural number) humans are present on the radio link 32.”).
Regarding claim 3, Jeong discloses
The system of Claim 2, wherein the at least one processing device is also configured to determine an occupancy type of the area based on the display object count, wherein the occupancy type is unoccupied in an instance in which the display object count is zero (see paragraph 0043, the object count can determine when humans are absent, for example, “On the other hand, the integrated control system 200 may transmit the identification code (ID) and a disable signal to the air conditioning system 22 so that the indoor air conditioners may be turned off in such an indoor space where people 300 are deemed to be absent according to human counting information (N) from the human counting system 100.”), wherein the occupancy type is single occupancy in an instance in which the display object count is one, and wherein the occupancy type is multiple occupancy in an instance in which the display object count is above one (see Figs. 7 and 8, the object count can detect a single person or multiple people; paragraph 0063, “FIG. 7 illustrates an experimental setting when only one person is present in a laboratory. FIG. 8 illustrates an experimental setting when three people are present in the laboratory.”).
Regarding claim 4, Jeong discloses
The system of Claim 1, wherein the count determination device is further configured to:
determine, based on the comparison of the estimated object count to the object count cap, a display accuracy (see paragraphs 0065-0067, accuracy results); and
cause a rendering of the display accuracy to the user interface (see Figs. 9-12).
Regarding claim 5, Jeong discloses
The system of Claim 1, wherein each of the at least one object corresponds to an individual person (see Fig. 7, the target is an individual person).
Regarding claim 6, Silverstein discloses
The system of Claim 1, wherein the display object count is rendered by displaying the display object count followed by a '+' (see Fig. 8, example client device; paragraph 0160, “User interface 810 includes one or more output devices 812 that enable presentation of media content, including one or more speakers and/or one or more visual displays.”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Silverstein into the invention of Jeong. Jeong fails to disclose the display object count followed by a ‘+’. This feature is disclosed by Silverstein where the user interface is enabled to present media content including visual displays. It is reasonable to believe that the device of Silverstein could display the object count followed by a ‘+’. The combination of Jeong and Silverstein would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to indicate to the user the display count and the possibility that the display count may not be accurate.
Regarding claim 7, Silverstein discloses
The system of Claim 1, wherein the user interface is a mobile device (see paragraph 0105, example of client device is a smart phone).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Silverstein into the invention of Jeong. Jeong fails to disclose a user interface. This feature is disclosed by Silverstein where the client device can be a smart phone. The combination of Jeong and Silverstein would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to provide the radar system’s data to a user in a convenient manner with commonly available technology.
Regarding claim 8, Jeong discloses
The system of Claim 1, wherein the display object count is one less than the estimated object count (see pg. 4, paragraphs 0050-0054, the final object estimation can be different from the validation probability, the validation probability is calculated multiple times).
Regarding claims 9-14, the same cited sections and rationale for claims 1-6 are applied. The only difference between claims 1-6 and claims 9-14 is that claims 1-6 refer to an apparatus while claims 9-14 refer to a method. The examiner considers Jeong Abstract (“The present disclosure relates to an indoor device-free human counting method and a system for the method.”) to show that the radar apparatus performs the radar method of claims 9-14.
Regarding claims 15-20, the same cited sections and rationale for claims 1-6 are applied. The only difference between claims 1-6 and claims 15-20 is that claims 1-6 refer to an apparatus while claims 15-20 refer to a computer readable program. The examiner considers Jeong Fig. 1 to show that the radar apparatus includes the computer program product of claims 15-20.
Additional Relevant Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and may be found on the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited:
Hashimoto et al. (US 20200097739 A1); An object detection device includes a processor configured to calculate, for each of a plurality of regions in a detection range of the sensor represented in the newest sensor signal among a plurality of sensor signals in time-series acquired by a sensor, a confidence indicating a degree of certainty that an object to be detected is represented in the region; track a first object which has been detected, to detect, in the newest sensor signal, a passed region through which the first object has passed; control, for each of the plurality of regions in the newest sensor signal, a confidence threshold according to whether or not the region is included in the passed region, and detect a second object in a region, among the plurality of regions, with respect to which the confidence for the second object is equal to or higher than the confidence threshold.
Ray et al. (US 20180299846 A1); A building management system includes one or more data sources that provide utilization data describing an actual utilization of one or more spaces and a utilization circuit. The utilization circuit is configured to, for each space of the one or more spaces, calculate a utilization attribute of the space based on the utilization data describing the actual utilization of the space, and retrieve, from a space profile for the space, a utilization target corresponding to the utilization attribute. At least two of the plurality of space profiles are associated with a different type of space that serves a different function and define the target utilization of the space. The utilization circuit is further configured to generate a normalized utilization metric for the space by normalizing the utilization attribute relative to the utilization target and generate and provide a utilization recommendation for the space based on the normalized utilization metric.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA A EDRADA whose telephone number is (571)272-4859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm ET.
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.
/ISABELLA A EDRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights