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 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 Status
In the preliminary amendment filed on June 9, 2025, claims 1-10 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-10 are currently pending for examination.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 8 is drawn to a “computer program", per se, therefore, fail(s) to fall within a statutory category of invention.
A claim directed to a computer program itself is non-statutory because it is not:
A process, or
A machine, or
A manufacture, or
A composition of matter.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (Zhang: US 20200397365) in view of Lu-Dac et al. (Lu-Dac: US 20180170213).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang teaches a method implemented by an ultra-wide band system in a vehicle for detecting the breathing of one or more passengers (Par 135, passenger, baby in vehicle), the ultra-wide band system comprising one or more ultra-wide band sensors (Par 124, Par [0127] The Type 1 device and Type 2 device support UWB), the method comprising, for each ultra-wide band sensor:
acquiring a radar-echo signal (Par 232-233;) having an acquisition sampling frequency (Par 102 and Par 104); and
performing a plurality of breathing search processes (Par 104, Par 193-196) comprising a first process and a second process, the first process receiving as input a first sub-sample of a portion of the radar-echo signal having a first duration, the second process receiving as input a second sub-sample of a portion of the radar-echo signal having a second duration (Par [0104] A first section of a first time duration of the first TSCI and a second section of a second time duration of the second section of the second TSCI may be aligned. A map between items of the first section and items of the second section may be computed. The first section may comprise a first segment (e.g. subset) of the first TSCI with a first starting/ending time, and/or another segment (e.g. subset) of a processed first TSCI. The processed first TSCI may be the first TSCI processed by a first operation. The second section may comprise a second segment (e.g. subset) of the second TSCI with a second starting time and a second ending time, and another segment (e.g. subset) of a processed second TSCI. The processed second TSCI may be the second TSCI processed by a second operation. ).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose the first duration being greater than the second duration and a frequency of the first sub-sample being less than a frequency of the second sub-sample.
Zhang further teaches the object may be a child, older person, baby in vehicle (Par 135).
However, Lu-Dac teaches a radar sensor system and method for ascertaining whether an unattended child is present within an automotive vehicle (abstract) and the breathing rates of people with different age groups are different (Fig. 12). One of the ordinary skill in the art would use different durations using highest possible sampling frequency to improve the precision of the system i.e. the first duration being greater than the second duration and a frequency of the first sub-sample being less than a frequency of the second sub-sample.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use different durations and different sampling frequencies in order to improve the precision of the system.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Zhang and Lu-Dac discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein each process comprises an autocorrelation analysis of the respective sub-sample with a view to detecting a repetition period of a pattern and an associated reliability score (Zhang; Fig. 2 and Par 239-245, estimate of the ACF, and the estimation noise of the ACF and Par 152, confidence factor).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Zhang and Lu-Dac teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein each sub-sample comprises a respective set of measurements, the number of measurements of each sub-sample being less than or equal to 180 (Zhang: Par 89, probe signals at 30Hz and Par 242, Par 227, a time delay slightly longer than one breathing cycle e.g. 5 seconds).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Zhang and Lu-Dac discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first duration is greater than or equal to 7 seconds and/or the second duration is less than or equal to 7 seconds (Zhang: Par 242, a time delay slightly longer than one breathing cycle (e.g., 5 to 7 seconds) is sufficient to pick up the first breathing rate ).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Zhang and Lu-Dac discloses the method as claimed in any of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the plurality of breathing search processes comprise a third process, wherein the third process comprises receiving as input a third sub-sample of a portion of the radar-echo signal having a third duration, the second duration being greater than the third duration and the frequency of the second sub-sample being less than a frequency of the third sub-sample.
However, Lu-Dac teaches in Fig. 12 that the number of age groups that differs in breathing rates are five i.e. more than 2. One of the ordinary skill in the art would understand to use a third process having sub-sample with different duration and frequency i.e. receiving as input a third sub-sample of a portion of the radar-echo signal having a third duration, the second duration being greater than the third duration and the frequency of the second sub-sample being less than a frequency of the third sub-sample for different age groups of more than two.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive as input a third sub-sample of a portion of the radar-echo signal having a third duration, the second duration being greater than the third duration and the frequency of the second sub-sample being less than a frequency of the third sub-sample in order to accommodate more than two age groups with different breathing rates.
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Zhang and Lu-Dac discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein each process is repeated every X seconds with X being a real number less than or equal to 2 seconds (Zhang: Par 242, instantaneous estimates can be produced every one second ).
Claims 8-10 are also rejected for the same reasons for claim 1 above. Zhang further teaches a memory on which the program is stored (Abstract: a processor communicatively coupled to the at least one sensor; a memory communicatively coupled to the processor; and a set of instructions stored in the memory).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Lu-Dac further in view of Funyak et al. (Funyak: US 20200290567 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Zhang and Lu-Dac discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose the method comprising generation of an alert depending on results of the search processes.
Zhang teaches detecting baby left in the car (Par 186, The Type 1 device and Type 2 devices may be placed in cars to … detect any babies left in a car. ).
Funyak teaches a vehicle occupant detection system (abstract) configured to detect a child left behind on a vehicle based on breathing detection and further teaches generation of an alert depending on results of the search processes (Par 171-172).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Funyak in order to alert the driver, police or EMS for remedial actions (Funyak: Par 256).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Prior arts cited for the record but not used in Office Action, are listed in attached PTO-892.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nay Tun whose telephone number is (571)270-7939. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 9:00-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's Supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached on (571) 270-1210. 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).
/Nay Tun/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights