DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on 05/01/2026 concerning application no. 19/212,316 filed on 10/01/2025.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/01/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 101 rejection, Applicant argues that the incorporation of the dependent claim 2 into the independent claim makes the claim eligible.
Regarding the 101 rejection, it is herein acknowledged that Claim 2 was not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, upon further consideration, it is hereby considered that Claim 2 (now incorporated in independent claim) is patent-ineligible for the reasons set forth below.
Examiner respectfully maintains the rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the double patenting, Applicant argues “Because the claims are still pending and subject to further change, Applicant respectfully requests that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance until it is the last remaining rejection and that it be reconsidered when the claims are otherwise allowable.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are still subject to the double patenting and are not allowable. Terminal disclaimer must be filed to address the double patenting issue.
Examiner maintains the rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a smart device and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “perform a first set of operations on the radar data stream to perform user activity recognition; and perform a second set of operations on the radar data stream to perform vital sign detection”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the analysis of radar data to assess user activity recognition and vital sign detection. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “a housing; a radar sensor, housed by the housing, configured to operate in a burst mode in which the radar sensor transmits a plurality of bursts of radar chirps, wherein a first amount of time elapsing between adjacent radar chirps of a burst of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps is smaller than a second amount of time elapsing between adjacent bursts of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps, the radar sensor configured to: receive reflections of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps, and output a radar data stream based on the reflections of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps; and a processing system, housed by the housing and in communication with the radar sensor, comprising one or more processors, the processing system, configured to”. The collection of radar data at varying frequency transmissions is a data gathering step that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. The use of a housing and a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a smart device and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “wherein the user activity recognition is gesture detection”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to recognition of gestures. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similar to Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not contain additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 3 is ineligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a smart device and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “wherein the second set of operations comprises instructions to convert the radar data stream to a virtual continuous mode radar data stream”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the conversion of radar data. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similar to Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not contain additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 4 is ineligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a smart device and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “wherein the virtual continuous mode radar data stream comprises a plurality of virtual reflections of radar chirps spaced equally in time”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the conversion of radar data. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similar to Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not contain additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 5 is ineligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a smart device and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “create a virtual reflection of a radar chirp based on multiple radar chirps of a burst of the plurality of bursts, wherein the virtual reflection of the radar chirp is part of the plurality of virtual reflections of radar chirps spaced equally in time”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the conversion of radar data. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the instructions to convert the radar data stream to the virtual continuous mode radar data stream comprises instructions that cause the processing system to”. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 6 is ineligible.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a smart device and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “sampling a plurality of samples of each radar chirp of the multiple chirps of the burst; averaging each sample of the plurality of samples with corresponding samples from the other chirps of the multiple chirps of the burst to create a plurality of averaged samples; and assembling the averaged samples to create the virtual reflection of the radar chirp”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to data processing via sampling, averaging, and compiling data. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein in creating the virtual reflection of the radar chirp based on multiple radar chirps of the burst of the plurality of bursts, the processing system is configured to perform an averaging process, the averaging process comprising”. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 7 is ineligible.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a smart device and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “wherein the user activity recognition is performed while the vital sign detection is being performed”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to user activity recognition and vital sign detection. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No Similar to Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not contain additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 8 is ineligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 1 rejection.
Claim 9 recites the following elements: “wherein the radar sensor outputs RF having a frequency between 45 GHz and 80 GHz”. This claim element is a mere data gathering step which amounts to a pre-solution insignificant activity. This pre-solution insignificant activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor does it contain an inventive step. In light of above, claim 9 is ineligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 1 rejection.
Claim 10 recites the following elements: “wherein the radar sensor outputs RF having a peak equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) of less than 20 dBm”. This claim element is a mere data gathering step which amounts to a pre-solution insignificant activity. This pre-solution insignificant activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor does it contain an inventive step. In light of above, claim 10 is ineligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “performing, by the processing system, a first set of operations on the radar data stream to perform user activity recognition; and performing, by the processing system, a second set of operations on the radar data stream to perform vital sign detection”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the analysis of radar data to assess user activity recognition and vital sign detection. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “emitting radar chirps, by a radar sensor operating in a burst mode, such that the radar sensor emits a plurality of bursts of radar chirps, wherein a first amount of time elapsing between adjacent radar chirps of a burst of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps is smaller than a second amount of time elapsing between adjacent bursts of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps; outputting, by the radar sensor, a burst mode radar data stream that is based on reflections of the radar chirps of the plurality of bursts or the radar chirps; receiving, by a processing system, the burst mode radar data stream from the radar sensor”. The collection of radar data at varying frequency transmissions is a data gathering step that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. The use of a housing and a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 11 is ineligible.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “wherein performing the second set of operations comprises converting, by the processing system, the burst mode radar data stream to a virtual continuous mode radar data stream”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the conversion of radar data. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similar to Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not contain additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 13 is ineligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “wherein the virtual continuous mode radar data stream is comprised of a plurality of virtual reflections of radar chirps spaced equally in time”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the conversion of radar data. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similar to Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not contain additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 14 is ineligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “wherein converting the burst mode radar data stream to the virtual continuous mode radar data stream comprises: creating a virtual reflection of a radar chirp based on multiple radar chirps of a burst of the plurality of bursts, wherein the virtual reflection of the radar chirp is part of the plurality of virtual reflections of radar chirps spaced equally in time”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the conversion of radar data. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similar to Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not contain additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 15 is ineligible.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “wherein creating the virtual reflection of the radar chirp based on the multiple radar chirps of the burst of the plurality of bursts comprises: sampling a plurality of samples of each radar chirp of multiple chirps of the burst; averaging each sample of the plurality of samples with corresponding samples from the other chirps of the multiple chirps of the burst to create a plurality of averaged samples; and assembling the averaged samples to create the virtual reflection of the radar chirp”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to data processing via sampling, averaging, and compiling data. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similar to Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not contain additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 16 is ineligible.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “wherein the contactless human interaction is a gesture”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to recognition of a gesture. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No Similar to Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not contain additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 17 is ineligible.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “wherein the contactless human interaction is presence detection”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to recognition of a presence. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No Similar to Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not contain additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 18 is ineligible.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “wherein the vital sign detection comprises sleep monitoring of the user”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to sleep assessment. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No Similar to Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not contain additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 19 is ineligible.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 11 rejection.
Claim 20 recites the following elements: “wherein emitting the radar chirps comprises outputting RF having a peak equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) of less than 20 dBm”. This claim element is a mere data gathering step which amounts to a pre-solution insignificant activity. This pre-solution insignificant activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor does it contain an inventive step. In light of above, claim 20 is ineligible.
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 1, 3-6, 11, and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (PGPUB No. US 2017/0102457).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a smart device, comprising: a housing; a radar sensor, housed by the housing, configured to operate in a burst mode in which the radar sensor transmits a plurality of bursts of radar chirps, wherein a first amount of time elapsing between adjacent radar chirps of a burst of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps is smaller than a second amount of time elapsing between adjacent bursts of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps (Paragraph 0063 teaches a hybrid radar system that has the radar waveform generator, the microwave front end, and the baseband signal processing unit. See Fig. 6. Paragraphs 0012-13 teach the system includes the computing device and memory for the operation of the signal transmission in two modes. Fig. 1 shows the transmission in the time domain at varying frequencies. Paragraph 0047 teaches the operation in the varying transmission signals that are chirp signals), the radar sensor configured to:
receive reflections of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps (Paragraphs 0047-48 teach the transmission and reception of the signals and the reflection respectively. See Figs. 1-2 and 6), and
output a radar data stream based on the reflections of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps (Paragraphs 0047-48 teach the transmission and reception of the signals and the reflection respectively. See Figs. 1-2 and 6); and
a processing system, housed by the housing and in communication with the radar sensor, comprising one or more processors, the processing system (Paragraph 0063 teaches a hybrid radar system that has the radar waveform generator, the microwave front end, and the baseband signal processing unit. See Fig. 6. Paragraphs 0012-13 teach the system includes the computing device and memory for the operation of the signal transmission in two modes), configured to:
perform a first set of operations on the radar data stream to perform user activity recognition (Paragraphs 0073-74 teach gesture tracking); and
perform a second set of operations on the radar data stream to perform vital sign detection (Paragraph 0071 teaches vital sign monitoring).
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches the smart device in claim 1, as discussed above.
Li further teaches a smart device, wherein the user activity recognition is gesture detection (Paragraphs 0073-74 teach gesture tracking).
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches the smart device in claim 1, as discussed above.
Li further teaches a smart device, wherein the second set of operations comprises instructions to convert the radar data stream to a virtual continuous mode radar data stream (Paragraphs 0047-48 teach the transmission and reception of the signals and the reflection respectively. The operation is according to FMCW and interferometry and the received signal is digitized. See Figs. 1-2 and 6).
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches the smart device in claim 4, as discussed above.
Li further teaches a smart device, wherein the virtual continuous mode radar data stream comprises a plurality of virtual reflections of radar chirps spaced equally in time (Paragraphs 0047-48 teach the transmission and reception of the signals and the reflection respectively. The operation is according to FMCW and interferometry and the received signal is digitized. See Figs. 1-2 and 6).
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches the smart device in claim 5, as discussed above.
Li further teaches a smart device, wherein the instructions to convert the radar data stream to the virtual continuous mode radar data stream comprise instructions that cause the processing system to: create a virtual reflection of a radar chirp based on multiple radar chirps of a burst of the plurality of bursts, wherein the virtual reflection of the radar chirp is part of the plurality of virtual reflections of radar chirps spaced equally in time (Paragraphs 0047-48 teach the transmission and reception of the signals and the reflection respectively. The operation is according to FMCW and interferometry and the received signal is digitized. See Figs. 1-2 and 6).
Regarding claim 11, Li teaches a method for monitoring for contactless human interactions and monitoring health using a single radar modulation mode, the method comprising:
emitting radar chirps, by a radar sensor operating in a burst mode, such that the radar sensor emits a plurality of bursts of radar chirps, wherein a first amount of time elapsing between adjacent radar chirps of a burst of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps is smaller than a second amount of time elapsing between adjacent bursts of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps (Paragraph 0063 teaches a hybrid radar system that has the radar waveform generator, the microwave front end, and the baseband signal processing unit. See Fig. 6. Paragraphs 0012-13 teach the system includes the computing device and memory for the operation of the signal transmission in two modes. Fig. 1 shows the transmission in the time domain at varying frequencies. Paragraph 0047 teaches the operation in the varying transmission signals that are chirp signals);
outputting, by the radar sensor, a burst mode radar data stream that is based on reflections of the radar chirps of the plurality of bursts or the radar chirps (Paragraphs 0047-48 teach the transmission and reception of the signals and the reflection respectively. See Figs. 1-2 and 6);
receiving, by a processing system, the burst mode radar data stream from the radar sensor (Paragraphs 0047-48 teach the transmission and reception of the signals and the reflection respectively. See Figs. 1-2 and 6);
performing, by the processing system, a first set of operations on the radar data stream to perform user activity recognition (Paragraphs 0073-74 teach gesture tracking); and
performing, by the processing system, a second set of operations on the radar data stream to perform vital sign detection (Paragraph 0071 teaches vital sign monitoring).
Regarding claim 13, Li teaches the method in claim 11, as discussed above.
Li further teaches a method, wherein performing the second set of operations comprises converting, by the processing system, the burst mode radar data stream to a virtual continuous mode radar data stream (Paragraphs 0047-48 teach the transmission and reception of the signals and the reflection respectively. The operation is according to FMCW and interferometry and the received signal is digitized. See Figs. 1-2 and 6).
Regarding claim 14, Li teaches the method in claim 13, as discussed above.
Li further teaches a method, wherein the virtual continuous mode radar data stream is comprised of a plurality of virtual reflections of radar chirps spaced equally in time (Paragraphs 0047-48 teach the transmission and reception of the signals and the reflection respectively. The operation is according to FMCW and interferometry and the received signal is digitized. See Figs. 1-2 and 6).
Regarding claim 15, Li teaches the method in claim 14, as discussed above.
Li further teaches a method, wherein converting the burst mode radar data stream to the virtual continuous mode radar data stream comprises: creating a virtual reflection of a radar chirp based on multiple radar chirps of a burst of the plurality of bursts, wherein the virtual reflection of the radar chirp is part of the plurality of virtual reflections of radar chirps spaced equally in time (Paragraphs 0047-48 teach the transmission and reception of the signals and the reflection respectively. The operation is according to FMCW and interferometry and the received signal is digitized. See Figs. 1-2 and 6).
Regarding claim 17, Li teaches the method in claim 11, as discussed above.
Li further teaches a method, wherein the contactless human interaction is a gesture (Paragraphs 0073-74 teach gesture tracking).
Regarding claim 18, Li teaches the method in claim 11, as discussed above.
Li further teaches a method, wherein the contactless human interaction is presence detection (Paragraph 0008 teaches the locating, distinguishing, and monitoring of the target subjects).
Regarding claim 19, Li teaches the method in claim 11, as discussed above.
Li further teaches a method, wherein the vital sign detection comprises sleep monitoring of the user (Paragraph 0008 teaches assessment while the subject is sleeping).
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 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.
Claims 7-9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (PGPUB No. US 2017/0102457) in view of Takeuchi et al. (PGPUB No. US 2019/0391249).
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches the smart device in claim 6, as discussed above.
However, Li is silent regarding a smart device, wherein in creating the virtual reflection of the radar chirp based on multiple radar chirps of the burst of the plurality of bursts, the processing system is configured to perform an averaging process, the averaging process comprising: sampling a plurality of samples of each radar chirp of multiple chirps of the burst; averaging each sample of the plurality of samples with corresponding samples from the other chirps of the multiple chirps of the burst to create a plurality of averaged samples; and assembling the averaged samples to create the virtual reflection of the radar chirp.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding radar based object tracking, Takeuchi teaches a smart device, wherein in creating the virtual reflection of the radar chirp based on multiple radar chirps of the burst of the plurality of bursts, the processing system is configured to perform an averaging process, the averaging process comprising: sampling a plurality of samples of each radar chirp of multiple chirps of the burst; averaging each sample of the plurality of samples with corresponding samples from the other chirps of the multiple chirps of the burst to create a plurality of averaged samples; and assembling the averaged samples to create the virtual reflection of the radar chirp (Paragraph 0138 teaches the collection of the series of chirps and averaging the data sequences associated between the first and last chirp in the burst. Paragraph 0141 teaches the average data is determined, collected, and stored. It is used for the assessment of the living body).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Li with Takeuchi’s teaching of averaging sampling data. This modified apparatus would allow the user to improve signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (Paragraph 0138 of Takeuchi). Furthermore, the modification improves resolution and provides a low-cost system (Paragraph 0226 of Takeuchi).
Regarding claim 8, modified Li teaches the smart device in claim 7, as discussed above.
Li further teaches a smart device, wherein the user activity recognition is performed while the vital sign detection is being performed (Abstract teaches that the vital signs and the gestures can be monitored at the same time).
Regarding claim 9, Li teaches the smart device in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Li is silent regarding a smart device, wherein the radar sensor outputs RF having a frequency between 45 GHz and 80 GHz.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding radar based object tracking, Takeuchi teaches a smart device, wherein the radar sensor outputs RF having a frequency between 45 GHz and 80 GHz (Paragraph 0080 teaches the application of a frequency between 30-300 GHz. Paragraph 0086 teaches the application of 76-77 GHz band. Paragraph 0105 teaches the application of 80 GHz. Paragraph 0172 teaches the application of 79 GHz).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Li with Takeuchi’s teaching of an RF frequency band between 45-80 GHz. This modified apparatus would allow the user to improve signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (Paragraph 0138 of Takeuchi). Furthermore, the modification improves resolution and provides a low-cost system (Paragraph 0226 of Takeuchi).
Regarding claim 16, Li teaches the method in claim 15, as discussed above.
However, Li is silent regarding a method, wherein creating the virtual reflection of the radar chirp based on the multiple radar chirps of the burst of the plurality of bursts comprises: sampling a plurality of samples of each radar chirp of multiple chirps of the burst; averaging each sample of the plurality of samples with corresponding samples from the other chirps of the multiple chirps of the burst to create a plurality of averaged samples; and assembling the averaged samples to create the virtual reflection of the radar chirp.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding radar based object tracking, Takeuchi teaches a method, wherein creating the virtual reflection of the radar chirp based on the multiple radar chirps of the burst of the plurality of bursts comprises: sampling a plurality of samples of each radar chirp of multiple chirps of the burst; averaging each sample of the plurality of samples with corresponding samples from the other chirps of the multiple chirps of the burst to create a plurality of averaged samples; and assembling the averaged samples to create the virtual reflection of the radar chirp (Paragraph 0138 teaches the collection of the series of chirps and averaging the data sequences associated between the first and last chirp in the burst. Paragraph 0141 teaches the average data is determined, collected, and stored. It is used for the assessment of the living body).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Li with Takeuchi’s teaching of averaging sampling data. This modified method would allow the user to improve signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (Paragraph 0138 of Takeuchi). Furthermore, the modification improves resolution and provides a low-cost system (Paragraph 0226 of Takeuchi).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (PGPUB No. US 2017/0102457) in view of Weitnauer et al. (PGPUB No. US 2014/0378809).
Regarding claim 10, Li teaches the smart device in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Li is silent regarding a smart device, wherein the radar sensor outputs RF having a peak equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) of less than 20 dBm.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding RF transmission, Weitnauer teaches a smart device, wherein the radar sensor outputs RF having a peak equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) of less than 20 dBm (Paragraph 0025 teaches operation -41.3 dBm).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Li with Weitnauer’s teaching of EIRP less than 20 dBm. This modified apparatus would allow the user to have an IR-UWB radar that can be used without contacting the subject and can be used at relatively low power, suitable for continuous monitoring (Paragraph 0003 of Weitnauer). Furthermore, the modification may allow more accurately discerning a plurality of elements from the heart rate harmonic set (Paragraph 0048 of Weitnauer).
Regarding claim 20, Li teaches the method in claim 11, as discussed above.
However, Li is silent regarding a method, wherein emitting the radar chirps comprises outputting RF having a peak equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) of less than 20 dBm.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding RF transmission, Weitnauer teaches a method, wherein emitting the radar chirps comprises outputting RF having a peak equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) of less than 20 dBm (Paragraph 0025 teaches operation -41.3 dBm).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Li with Weitnauer’s teaching of EIRP less than 20 dBm. This modified method would allow the user to have an IR-UWB radar that can be used without contacting the subject and can be used at relatively low power, suitable for continuous monitoring (Paragraph 0003 of Weitnauer). Furthermore, the modification may allow more accurately discerning a plurality of elements from the heart rate harmonic set (Paragraph 0048 of Weitnauer).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are anticipated.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 teaches a smart device, comprising:
a housing; a radar sensor, housed by the housing, configured to operate in a burst mode in which the radar sensor transmits a plurality of bursts of radar chirps, wherein a first amount of time elapsing between adjacent radar chirps of a burst of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps is smaller than a second amount of time elapsing between adjacent bursts of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps, the radar sensor configured to: receive reflections of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps, and output a radar data stream based on the reflections of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps; and a processing system, housed by the housing and in communication with the radar sensor, comprising one or more processors, the processing system, configured to: perform a first set of operations on the radar data stream to perform user activity recognition; and perform a second set of operations on the radar data stream to perform vital sign detection (Claim 1 recites: A contactless health monitoring device, comprising: a housing; a radar sensor, housed by the housing, configured to operate in a burst mode in which the radar sensor emits a plurality of bursts of radar chirps, wherein: a first amount of time elapsing between adjacent radar chirps of a burst of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps is smaller than a second amount of time elapsing between adjacent bursts of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps; and the radar sensor outputs a burst mode radar data stream that is based on received reflections of the radar chirps of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps; a processing system, housed by the housing, comprising one or more processors, that is in communication with the radar sensor, the processing system configured to: receive the burst mode radar data stream from the radar sensor; analyze the burst mode radar data stream to identify a contactless human interaction; convert the burst mode radar data stream to a virtual continuous mode radar data stream; and perform health monitoring of a user using the virtual continuous mode radar data stream).
Regarding claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 teaches the smart device in claim 1, as discussed above.
Claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 further teaches a smart device, wherein the user activity recognition is gesture detection (Claim 7 recites: The contactless health monitoring device of claim 1, wherein the contactless human interaction is a gesture).
Regarding claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 teaches the smart device in claim 1, as discussed above.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 further teaches a smart device, wherein the second set of operations comprises instructions to convert the radar data stream to a virtual continuous mode radar data stream (Claim 1 recites: convert the burst mode radar data stream to a virtual continuous mode radar data stream; and perform health monitoring of a user using the virtual continuous mode radar data stream).
Regarding claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 teaches the smart device in claim 4, as discussed above.
Claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 further teaches a smart device, wherein the virtual continuous mode radar data stream comprises a plurality of virtual reflections of radar chirps spaced equally in time (Claim 2 recites: The contactless health monitoring device of claim 1, wherein the virtual continuous mode radar data stream comprises a plurality of virtual reflections of radar chirps spaced equally in time).
Regarding claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 teaches the smart device in claim 5, as discussed above.
Claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 further teaches a smart device, wherein the instructions to convert the radar data stream to the virtual continuous mode radar data stream comprises instructions that cause the processing system to: create a virtual reflection of a radar chirp based on the multiple radar chirps of a burst of the plurality of bursts, wherein the virtual reflection of the radar chirp is part of the plurality of virtual reflections of radar chirps spaced equally in time (Claim 6 recites: The contactless health monitoring device of claim 2, wherein the processing system being configured to convert the burst mode radar data stream to the virtual continuous mode radar data stream comprises the processing system being configured to: create a virtual reflection of a radar chirp based on the multiple radar chirps of a burst of the plurality of bursts, wherein the virtual reflection of the radar chirp is part of the plurality of virtual reflections of radar chirps spaced equally in time).
Regarding claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 teaches the smart device in claim 6, as discussed above.
Claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 further teaches a smart device, wherein in creating the virtual reflection of the radar chirp based on multiple radar chirps of the burst of the plurality of bursts, the processing system is configured to perform an averaging process, the averaging process comprising: sampling a plurality of samples of each radar chirp of the multiple chirps of the burst; averaging each sample of the plurality of samples with corresponding samples from the other chirps of the multiple chirps of the burst to create a plurality of averaged samples; and assembling the averaged samples to create the virtual reflection of the radar chirp (Claim 4 recites: The contactless health monitoring device of claim 3, wherein the processing system being configured to create the virtual reflection of the radar chirp based on the multiple radar chirps of the burst of the plurality of bursts comprises the processing system being configured to perform an averaging process, comprising: sampling a plurality of samples of each radar chirp of the multiple chirps of the burst; averaging each sample of the plurality of samples with corresponding samples from the other chirps of the multiple chirps of the burst to create a plurality of averaged samples; and assembling the averaged samples to create the virtual reflection of the radar chirp).
Regarding claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 teaches the smart device in claim 7, as discussed above.
Claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 further teaches a smart device, wherein the user activity recognition is performed while detection of the vital sign detection is being performed (Claim 5 recites: The contactless health monitoring device of claim 4, wherein the contactless human interaction is detected while health monitoring is being performed).
Regarding claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 teaches the smart device in claim 1, as discussed above.
Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 further teaches a smart device, wherein the radar sensor outputs RF having a frequency between 45 GHz and 80 GHz (Claim 6 recites: The contactless health monitoring device of claim 1, wherein the radar sensor outputs frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar having a frequency between 57-64 GHz and a peak EIRP of less than 20 dBm).
Regarding claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 teaches the smart device in claim 1, as discussed above.
Claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 further teaches a smart device, wherein the radar sensor outputs RF having a peak equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) of less than 20 dBm (Claim 6 recites: The contactless health monitoring device of claim 1, wherein the radar sensor outputs frequency-modulated continuous wave (FMCW) radar having a frequency between 57-64 GHz and a peak EIRP of less than 20 dBm).
Regarding claim 11, Claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 teaches a method for monitoring for contactless human interactions and monitoring health using a single radar modulation mode, the method comprising: emitting radar chirps, by a radar sensor operating in a burst mode, such that the radar sensor emits a plurality of bursts of radar chirps, wherein a first amount of time elapsing between adjacent radar chirps of a burst of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps is smaller than a second amount of time elapsing between adjacent bursts of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps; outputting, by the radar sensor, a burst mode radar data stream that is based on reflections of the radar chirps of the plurality of bursts or the radar chirps; receiving, by a processing system, the burst mode radar data stream from the radar sensor; performing, by the processing system, a first set of operations on the radar data stream to perform user activity recognition; and performing, by the processing system, a second set of operations on the radar data stream to perform vital sign detection (Claim 14 recites: A method for monitoring for contactless human interactions and monitoring health using a single radar modulation mode, the method comprising: emitting radar chirps, by a radar sensor operating in a burst mode, such that the radar sensor emits a plurality of bursts of radar chirps, wherein: a first amount of time elapsing between subsequent radar chirps of a burst of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps is smaller than a second amount of time elapsing between subsequent bursts of the plurality of bursts of radar chirps; and the radar sensor outputs a burst mode radar data stream that is based on reflections of the radar chirps of the plurality of bursts or radar chirps; receiving, by a processing system, the burst mode radar data stream from the radar sensor; analyzing, by the processing system, the burst mode radar data stream for a contactless human interaction; converting, by the processing system, the burst mode radar data stream to a virtual continuous mode radar data stream; and performing, by the processing system, health monitoring of a user using the virtual continuous mode radar data stream).
Regarding claim 13, U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 teaches the method in claim 11, as discussed above.
Claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 further teaches a method, wherein performing the second set of operations comprises converting, by the processing system, the burst mode radar data stream to a virtual continuous mode radar data stream (Claim 13 recites: converting, by the processing system, the burst mode radar data stream to a virtual continuous mode radar data stream; and performing, by the processing system, health monitoring of a user using the virtual continuous mode radar data stream).
Regarding claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 teaches the method in claim 13, as discussed above.
Claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 further teaches a method, wherein the virtual continuous mode radar data stream is comprised of a plurality of virtual reflections of radar chirps spaced equally in time (Claim 15 recites: The method for monitoring for contactless human interactions and monitoring health using the single radar modulation mode of claim 14, wherein the virtual continuous mode radar data stream is comprised of a plurality of virtual reflections of radar chirps spaced equally in time).
Regarding claim 15, U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 teaches the method in claim 14, as discussed above.
Claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 further teaches a method, wherein converting the burst mode radar data stream to the virtual continuous mode radar data stream comprises: creating a virtual reflection of a radar chirp based on multiple radar chirps of a burst of the plurality of bursts, wherein the virtual reflection of the radar chirp is part of the plurality of virtual reflections of radar chirps spaced equally in time (Claim 16 recites: The method for monitoring for contactless human interactions and monitoring health using the single radar modulation mode of claim 15, wherein converting the burst mode radar data stream to the virtual continuous mode radar data stream comprises: creating a virtual reflection of a radar chirp based on the multiple radar chirps of a burst of the plurality of bursts, wherein the virtual reflection of the radar chirp is part of the plurality of virtual reflections of radar chirps spaced equally in time).
Regarding claim 16, U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 teaches the method in claim 15, as discussed above.
Claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 further teaches a method, wherein creating the virtual reflection of the radar chirp based on the multiple radar chirps of the burst of the plurality of bursts comprises: sampling a plurality of samples of each radar chirp of multiple chirps of the burst; averaging each sample of the plurality of samples with corresponding samples from the other chirps of the multiple chirps of the burst to create a plurality of averaged samples; and assembling the averaged samples to create the virtual reflection of the radar chirp (Claim 17 recites: The method for monitoring for contactless human interactions and monitoring health using the single radar modulation mode of claim 16, wherein creating the virtual reflection of the radar chirp based on the multiple radar chirps of the burst of the plurality of bursts comprises: sampling a plurality of samples of each radar chirp of the multiple chirps of the burst; averaging each sample of the plurality of samples with corresponding samples from the other chirps of the multiple chirps of the burst to create a plurality of averaged samples; and assembling the averaged samples to create the virtual reflection of the radar chirp).
Regarding claim 17, U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 teaches the method in claim 11, as discussed above.
Claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 further teaches a method, wherein the contactless human interaction is a gesture (Claim 18 recites: The method for monitoring for contactless human interactions and monitoring health using the single radar modulation mode of claim 17, wherein the contactless human interaction is a gesture).
Regarding claim 18, U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 teaches the method in claim 11, as discussed above.
Claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 further teaches a method, wherein the contactless human interaction is presence detection (Claim 19 recites: The method for monitoring for contactless human interactions and monitoring health using the single radar modulation mode of claim 17, wherein the contactless human interaction is presence detection).
Regarding claim 19, U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 teaches the method in claim 11, as discussed above.
Claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 further teaches a method, wherein the vital sign detection comprises sleep monitoring of the user (Claim 20 recites: The method for monitoring for contactless human interactions and monitoring health using the single radar modulation mode of claim 17, wherein the health monitoring comprises sleep monitoring of the user).
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 in view of Weitnauer et al. (PGPUB No. US 2014/0378809).
Regarding claim 20, modified U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 teaches the method in claim 11, as discussed above.
However, the method claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 is silent regarding a method, wherein emitting the radar chirps comprises outputting RF having a peak equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) of less than 20 dBm.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding RF transmission, Weitnauer teaches a method, wherein emitting the radar chirps comprises outputting RF having a peak equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) of less than 20 dBm (Paragraph 0025 teaches operation -41.3 dBm).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify U.S. Patent No. 12,329,506 with Weitnauer’s teaching of EIRP less than 20 dBm. This modified method would allow the user to have an IR-UWB radar that can be used without contacting the subject and can be used at relatively low power, suitable for continuous monitoring (Paragraph 0003 of Weitnauer). Furthermore, the modification may allow more accurately discerning a plurality of elements from the heart rate harmonic set (Paragraph 0048 of Weitnauer).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL PARTAP S VIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-8569. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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 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.
/ADIL PARTAP S VIRK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights