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 .
This Office Action is responsive to the Reply to Office Action filed April 18, 2025. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-2, 5-7, 9-10 and 13-15, and the cancellation of claims 3-4. Claims 1-2 and 5-15 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
While Applicant’s remarks, filed April 18, 2025 have overcome some of the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112(b), indefiniteness issues remain within the claims. With respect to claim 1, it is unclear whether the plurality of different measurement regions are used to measure a singular blood flow, or whether the plurality of different measurement regions are used to measure the respective blood flow in each measurement region, and further it is unclear as to how the blood flow comparison unit compares blood flows between the different measurement regions and further how the correlation analysis unit analyzes a correlation between blood flows when the claim recites that only the distribution of “a blood flow” is detected. With respect to claim 2, it is unclear whether the “each of the blood flows simultaneously generated in different measurement regions” referenced in claim 2 are the same as the blood flows detected in claim 1 (i.e., the first blood flow and the second blood flow). With respect to claim 8, it is unclear if the recited “a first measurement region” and “a second measurement region” are the same as or different than the recited first measurement region and second measurement region of claim 1. With respect to claim 12, it is unclear whether the “a motion” recited in claim 12 is the same as or different than the “a motion” recited in claim 1. Further, it is unclear what blood flow is analyzed for use in the estimation of the motion of the subject. With respect to claim 13, it is unclear if the motion recited in claim 13 is the same as or different than the “a motion” recited in claims 1 and 12. With respect to claim 14, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the subjects” and therefore, it is unclear as to what subjects the claim is referring. As such, the rejection of claims 1-2 and 5-15 under 35 USC 112(b) still stands.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 04/18/2025, with respect to the objection of claims 2 & 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous objections of claims 2 & 10 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the combination of Yoshioka as modified by Durduran and Krause fails to teach simultaneously generating blood flow in the different measurement regions. Further, Applicant argues the prior art combination fails to teach measuring blood flow in different measurement regions including a nose of the subject and a cheek of the subject. Furthermore, Applicant argues the prior art combination fails to teach the index value represents a correlation between an increase or a decrease in a first blood flow in a first measurement region and an increase or a decrease in a second blood flow simultaneously generated with the first blood flow in a second measurement region different from the first measurement region. Applicant’s arguments, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly added limitations made to the claims and newly found prior art that discloses those limitations. See 35 USC 103 rejections below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a visible light photographing unit, a blood flow distribution detection unit, a blood flow comparison unit, and a correlation analysis unit, as found in claim 1, a subject tracking unit, as found in claim 10, a face tracking unit, as found in claim 11, a state estimation unit, as found in claim 12, and a learning unit, as found in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. As described in the specification, the visible light photographing unit is a CCD sensor or a CMOS sensor (see par 0014 of specification), the blood flow distribution detection unit is a function of a circuit device or a function of software (see par 0072 of specification), the blood flow comparison unit is a function of a circuit device or a function of software (see par 0013, 0018-0019 & 0072 of specification), the correlation analysis unit is a function of a circuit device or a function of software (see par 0013, 0018-0019 & 0072 of specification), the subject tracking unit is a function of a circuit device or a function of software (see par 0043 & 0072), the face tracking unit is a function of a circuit device or a function of software (see par 0043 & 0072), the state estimation unit is a function of a circuit device or a function of software (see par 0072), and the learning unit is a function of a circuit device or a function of software (see par 0061 & 0072).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a visible light photographing unit that images light distribution of visible light in a plurality of different measurement regions for measuring a blood flow” at lines 3-4 (emphasis added), It is unclear whether the plurality of different measurement regions are used to measure a singular blood flow, or whether the plurality of different measurement regions are used to measure the respective blood flow in each measurement region. The Examiner respectfully requests clarification. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the visible light photographing unit images light in each of the plurality of different measurement regions for measuring a blood flow in each specific measurement region.
Claim 1 further recites “a blood flow comparison unit that compares blood flows between the different measurement regions based on the blood flow distributions detected by the blood flow distribution detection unit” at lines 10-12, and “a correlation analysis unit that analyzes a correlation between blood flows simultaneously generated in the different measurement regions by using the blood flow distributions detected by the blood flow distribution detection unit” at lines 13-15. As discussed above, claim 1 previously recites “a blood flow”, therefore it is unclear as to how the blood flow comparison unit compares blood flows between the different measurement regions and further how the correlation analysis unit analyzes a correlation between blood flows when the claim recites that only the distribution of “a blood flow” is detected. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the distribution of a plurality of blood flows are detected, and further that the blood flow comparison unit and the correlation analysis unit respectively compares and correlates the distribution of the plurality of blood flows detected from the different measurement regions.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites “calculate an index value representing a correlation between an increase or a decrease in a first blood flow in the first measurement region and an increase or a decrease in a second blood flow simultaneously generated with the first blood flow in the second measurement region different from the first measurement region” (emphasis added) at lines 17-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the first measurement region” and “the second measurement region”, and as such, it is unclear as to what first measurement region and second measurement region the claim is referring. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the index value is calculated to represent a correlation between an increase or a decrease in a first blood flow in a first measurement region and an increase or a decrease in a second blood flow in a second measurement region that is different from the first measurement region.
Claim 2 recites “the correlation analysis unit calculates an amount represented by a phase and an amplitude of each of the blood flows simultaneously generated in the different measurement regions at a frequency higher than a pulse cycle of the subject so as to analyze the correlation at a frequency higher than the pulse cycle” (emphasis added). It is unclear whether the “each of the blood flows simultaneously generated in different measurement regions” referenced in claim 2 are the same as the blood flows detected in claim 1 (i.e., the first blood flow and the second blood flow). For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the “each of blood flows” of claim 2 is referring to the detected blood flows (i.e., the first blood flow and the second blood flow) in different measurement regions of claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the blood flow comparison unit compares a blood flow in a first measurement region in which a blood flow rate changes due to arteriovenous anastomosis with a blood flow in a second measurement region in which a change in the blood flow rate due to arteriovenous anastomosis is smaller than that in the first measurement region so as to estimate a change in arteriovenous anastomosis and output a result thereof” (emphasis added). It is unclear if the recited “a first measurement region” and “a second measurement region” are the same as or different than the recited first measurement region and second measurement region of claim 1. The examiner respectfully requests clarification. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the recited “a first measurement region” and “a second measurement region” of claim 8 are the same as those of claim 1.
Claim 12 recites “a state estimation unit that estimates a motion performed by the subject by using a blood flow analyzed by the blood flow analysis device” at lines 3-4. It is unclear whether the “a motion” recited in claim 12 is the same as or different than the “a motion” recited in claim 1. Further, it is unclear what blood flow is analyzed for use in the estimation of the motion of the subject. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the recited “a motion” in claim 12 is referring to the same recited “a motion” of claim 1, and that the plurality of blood flows obtained from the plurality of measurement regions is analyzed for use in the estimation of the motion of the subject.
Claim 13 recites “an index database that describes a relationship between an index value representing a state of the blood flow and a motion performed by the subject, wherein the state estimation unit estimates the motion performed by the subject by referring to the index database by using the index value” (emphasis added). Claim 13 depends upon claim 12, which recites “a state estimation unit that estimates a motion performed by the subject by using a blood flow analyzed by the blood flow analysis device”. It is unclear if the motion recited in claim 13 is the same as or different than the “a motion” recited in claims 1 and 12. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the recited motion performed by the subject are the same “motion” in claims 1, 12 and 13. Claims 14 & 15 are similarly rejected and interpreted.
Claim 14 recites “a correction value database in which a correction value for correcting the index value is described for each of the subjects”. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the subjects” and therefore, it is unclear as to what subjects the claim is referring. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that there are a plurality of subjects that each have their own correction value.
Dependent claims are similarly rejected as their base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-2 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps or acts that the correlation analysis unit performs, including calculating an index value representing a correlation between an increase or a decrease in a first blood flow in a first measurement region and an increase or a decrease in a second blood flow simultaneously generated with the first blood flow in a second measurement region different from the first measurement region, and estimating a motion performed by a subject according to the index value. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The steps of calculating an index value representing a correlation between an increase or a decrease in a first blood flow in a first measurement region and an increase or a decrease in a second blood flow simultaneously generated with the first blood flow in a second measurement region different from the first measurement region, and estimating a motion performed by a subject according to the index value set forth judicial exceptions. These steps describe concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites outputting an estimation result and further outputting an estimation result that indicates that the subject is in a resting state when the index value is a first threshold or greater, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The output of the estimation result/motion state of the subject does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the output estimation result/motion state of the subject, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of imaging light distribution of visible light in a plurality of different measurement regions, detecting blood flow distributions in the different measurement regions using a visible light image, and comparing blood flows between the different measurement regions. The imaging, detecting, and comparing steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the imaging, detecting, and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
Furthermore, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited visible light photographing unit is a generic sensor configured to perform pre-solutional data gathering activity, and the blood flow distribution detection unit, the blood flow comparison unit, and the correlation analysis unit are part of a computer system that is configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they generally recite method steps pertaining to data gathering and data analysis. The imaging, detecting and comparing steps recited in the independent claim maintains a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, & 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20160100766 --as cited by applicant--, hereinafter referenced as "Yoshioka" in view of US Patent Application Publication 20200090819 –as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as “Durduran”, and in further view of US Patent Application Publication 20190298193 --as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as "Krause", and US Patent Application Publication 20180000359, hereinafter referenced as “Watanabe”.
With respect to claim 1, Yoshioka teaches a blood flow analysis device for analyzing blood flow of a subject (i.e., analyzing a blood pressure of a subject) (see Yoshioka, par 0073), the blood flow analysis device comprising:
a visible light photographing unit 101 (i.e., an image acquiring section) (see Yoshioka, par 0122-0123, 0125, 0127-0128, fig. 1) that images light distribution of visible light in a measurement region for measuring a blood flow (see Yoshioka, par 0131-0132, fig. 3);
a blood flow distribution detection unit 102 (i.e., a pulse-wave timing calculating section that calculates a pulse-wave time based upon changes in luminance of the skin of a user over time for a plurality of different regions) (see Yoshioka, par 0129-0131, 0205) that detects blood flow distributions by using a visible light image captured by the visible light photographing unit (see Yoshioka, par 0129-0133, fig. 3);
a blood flow comparison unit (i.e., a function of the pulse-wave timing calculating section) (see Yoshioka, par 0135) that compares blood flow distributions detected by the blood flow distribution detection unit (i.e., the pulse-wave timing calculating section compares luminance values of the skin of the user at a plurality of times to assess whether or not a pulse wave is occurring) (see Yoshioka, par 0135-0136, fig. 4A);
Yoshioka fails to teach that the blood flow comparison unit compares blood flows between different measurement regions by using blood flow distribution detected by the blood flow distribution detection unit, that the blood flow analysis device comprises a correlation analysis unit that analyzes a correlation between blood flows simultaneously generated in different measurement regions by using blood flow distributions detected by the blood flow distribution detection unit, that an index value that represents a correlation between an increase or a decrease in a first blood flow in a first measurement region and an increase or a decrease in a second blood flow simultaneously generated with the first blood flow in a second measurement region different from the first measurement region is calculated by the correlation analysis unit, that the correlation analysis unit estimates a motion performed by the subject according to the index value and outputs a result thereof as an estimation result, wherein upon determining the index value is a first threshold or greater, the output estimation result indicates that the subject is in a resting state, and that the plurality of different measurement regions include a nose of the subject and a cheek of the subject.
Durduran teaches a system and computer-implemented method for detecting and categorizing pathologies through an analysis of pulsatile blood flow, wherein the system comprises a diffuse correlation spectroscopy device that acquires pulsatile blood flow signals from a region of interest of a subject, wherein the device comprises a plurality of optical sources, optical detectors, and correlators that can be used to characterize blood flow in different regions of a patient (see Durduran, par 0017, 0056, 0078, 0126-0128). Further, Durduran teaches calculating an index that indicates the pulsatile blood flow of a patient in different regions, wherein the index is used to categorize pathologies a patient has based upon their blood flow index (i.e., such as an elevated intracranial pressures or risk of stroke) (see Durduran, par 0011, 0061-0062, 0064, 0078, 0122, 0130).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yoshioka such that the blood flow comparison unit compares blood flows between different measurement regions by using blood flow distribution detected by the blood flow distribution detection unit, such that the blood flow analysis device comprises a correlation analysis unit that analyzes a correlation between blood flows simultaneously generated in different measurement regions by using blood flow distribution detected by the blood flow distribution detection unit, and further, such that an index value that represents characteristics of a patient’s blood flow is calculated because that permits the determination of the local effects of certain pathologies, such as a stroke, in different regions of a subject, based upon the calculated index of the patient’s blood flow (see Durduran, par 0011, 0061-0062, 0064, 0078, 0122, 0130).
Yoshioka as modified by Durduran fails to teach the plurality of different measurement regions include a nose of the subject and a cheek of the subject. Further, Yoshioka as modified by Durduran fails to teach the correlation analysis unit estimates a motion performed by the subject according to the index value and outputs a result thereof as an estimation result, wherein upon determining the index value is a first threshold or greater, the output estimation result indicates that the subject is in a resting state, simultaneously generating blood flow in the different measurement regions, and that the index value represents a correlation between an increase or a decrease in a first blood flow in a first measurement region and an increase or a decrease in a second blood flow simultaneously generated with the first blood flow in a second measurement region different from the first measurement region.
Krause teaches a wearable blood pressure monitoring device that comprises a motion sensor that is operable to detect the motion of a user, and outputs detected motion to a controller in order to determine when the motion is greater than a specific threshold so that the controller can determine when the best time to take measurements is, so as to minimize the impact of motion artifacts (see Krause, par 0042-0043). Additionally, estimated behavior of the user is determined upon data from the motion sensor, such as sleeping, walking, or running (i.e., thresholding is used to determine the motion state of the user), and such data is displayed in a user-friendly interface (see Krause, par 0051 & 0164).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yoshioka as modified by Durduran such that the correlation analysis unit estimates a motion performed by the subject according to the index value and outputs a result thereof as an estimation result, wherein upon determining the index value is a first threshold or greater, the output estimation result indicates that the subject is in a resting state because that enables a processor or controller to minimize the impact of motion artifacts in obtained data and further enables the estimation of the behavior of a user based upon motion sensor data (see Krause, par 0042-0043 & 0051).
Yoshioka as modified by Durduran and Krause fails to teach the plurality of different measurement regions include a nose of the subject and a cheek of the subject. Further, Yoshioka as modified by Durduran fails to teach simultaneously generating blood flow in the different measurement regions, and that the index value represents a correlation between an increase or a decrease in a first blood flow in a first measurement region and an increase or a decrease in a second blood flow simultaneously generated with the first blood flow in a second measurement region different from the first measurement region.
Watanabe teaches a biological information detecting device wherein blood flow is measured at different portions of a subject’s face using a camera, such as their cheek and nose for determining a change in an emotion state of the subject (see Watanabe, par 0230-0234, figs. 15A-15C). Blood flow changes due to induced stress of a subject are simultaneously measured in the cheek and nose portions of the subject, and are recorded (see Watanabe, fig. 15C) and compared with one another (i.e., comparing increases and decreases of blood flow) to determine the blood flow differences/correlations in each measurement region as a result of the induced stress (see Watanabe, par 0230-0234, figs. 15A-15C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Yoshioka as modified by Durduran and Krause such that the plurality of different measurement regions include a nose of the subject and a cheek of the subject, such that the system is configured to simultaneously generate blood flow in the different measurement regions, and such that the index value represents a correlation between an increase or a decrease in a first blood flow in a first measurement region and an increase or a decrease in a second blood flow simultaneously generated with the first blood flow in a second measurement region different from the first measurement region because that permits the determination of temperature differences of different regions of a user (i.e., due to blood flow differences in those regions), such as the nose or cheek, which can be indicative of an emotion state of the subject (see Watanabe, par 0230-0234, figs. 15A-15C).
With respect to claim 2, Yoshioka as modified by Durduran, Krause, and Watanabe further teaches the correlation analysis unit calculates an amount represented by a phase and an amplitude of each of the blood flows simultaneously generated in the different measurement regions at a frequency higher than a pulse cycle of the subject so as to analyze the correlation at a frequency higher than the pulse cycle (see Yoshioka, par 0131).
With respect to claim 5, Yoshioka as modified by Durduran, Krause and Watanabe teaches the blood flow analysis device according to claim 1. Yoshioka as modified by Durduran, Krause and Watanabe further teaches upon determining the index value is less than the first threshold and greater than or equal to a second threshold, which is less than the first threshold, the output estimation result indicates that the subject is in an active state (i.e., thresholds are used to determine what state a user is in) (see Krause, par 0042-0043, 0051, 0161-0162 & 0164).
With respect to claim 6, Yoshioka as modified by Durduran, Krause and Watanabe teaches the blood flow analysis device according to claim 5. Yoshioka as modified by Durduran, Krause and Watanabe further teaches upon determining the index value is less than the second threshold, the output estimation result indicates the subject is in a transition state in which the subject makes a transition between the resting state and the active state (i.e., the device is able to determine when a user is in a state of medium activity and that is output to the controller so as to adjust a pressure applied to the user in order to ensure measurement accuracy) (see Krause, par 0082, 0162).
With respect to claim 7, Yoshioka as modified by Durduran, Krause and Watanabe teaches the blood flow analysis device according to claim 1. Yoshioka as modified by Durduran, Krause and Watanabe further teaches upon determining a temporal change rate of the index value is equal to or more than a third threshold, the output estimation result indicates a motion state of the subject has changed (see Krause, par 0162),
and upon determining a temporal change rate of the index value is less than the third threshold, the output estimation result indicates that a motion state of the subject is stable (see Krause, par 0162).
With respect to claim 10, Yoshioka as modified by Durduran, Krause and Watanabe teaches the blood flow analysis device according to claim 1, and further teaches the blood flow analysis device further includes a subject tracking unit that identifies a position of the subject before and after movement in the visible light image (see Yoshioka, par 0230),
and the blood flow distribution detection unit detects blood flow distribution at the position identified by the subject tracking unit (i.e., the pulse-wave timing calculating section can still extract a pulse wave of a user even when they are moving by tracking their position) (see Yoshioka, par 0230).
With respect to claim 11, Yoshioka as modified by Durduran, Krause and Watanabe teaches the blood flow analysis device according to claim 1, and further teaches the blood flow analysis device further includes a face tracking unit that identifies a face portion of the subject in the visible light image (i.e., the image acquiring section acquires images from a face or hand of a person, therefore the tracking occurs with the face or hand of the person) (see Yoshioka, par 0126-0127, 0130-0132, 0207, 0229-0230),
and the blood flow distribution detection unit detects blood flow distribution in the face portion identified by the face tracking unit (see Yoshioka, par 0126-0127, 0130-0132, 0207, 0229-0230).
With respect to claim 12, Yoshioka as modified by Durduran, Krause and Watanabe teaches the blood flow analysis device according to claim 1. With regards to a biological information analysis system, Yoshioka as modified by Durduran, Krause and Watanabe further teaches that a state estimation unit estimates the motion performed by the subject using a blood flow analyzed by the blood flow analysis device (see Krause, par 0042-0043 & 0051).
With respect to claim 13, Yoshioka as modified by Durduran, Krause and Watanabe teaches the biological information analysis system according to claim 12. Yoshioka as modified by Durduran, Krause and Watanabe further teaches the system comprises an index database that describes a relationship between an index value representing a state of the blood flow and a motion performed by the subject,
wherein the state estimation unit estimates the motion performed by the subject by referring to the index database by using the index value (i.e., collected data is stored and can be read for later use, such as the thresholds that are used for determining the motion performed by the subject) (see Krause, par 0140, 0144, 0146, 0150).
With respect to claim 14, Yoshioka as modified by Durduran, Krause and Watanabe teaches the biological information analysis system according to claim 13, and further teaches the biological information analysis system further comprises a correction value database in which a correction value for correcting the index value is described for each of the subjects, wherein, the state estimation unit acquires the correction value corresponding to the subject from the correction value database,
and the state estimation unit estimates the motion performed by the subject by referring to the index database by using the index value corrected by using the correction value acquired from the correction value database (i.e., the device is able to detect an individual user’s activity and is able to correct the amount of pressure needed at each reading according to the determined activity/motion of the user, which creates a feedback loop that the device uses to correctly assess the user’s motion/activity and pressure needed to assess the user’s blood flow) (see Krause, par 0162-0163).
With respect to claim 15, Yoshioka as modified by Durduran, Krause and Watanabe teaches the biological information analysis system according to claim 13, and further teaches the system further comprises a learning unit that learns a relationship between the index value and the motion performed by the subject by machine learning, wherein the index value is a value representing a state of the blood flow, the value being acquired by the blood flow analysis device or a device other than the blood flow analysis device, and the learning unit updates the index database according to a learned relationship database (i.e., the device uses machine learning to detect an individual user’s activity and is able to correct the amount of pressure needed at each reading according to the determined activity/motion of the user, which creates a feedback loop that the device uses to correctly assess the user’s motion/activity and pressure needed to assess the user’s blood flow) (see Krause, par 0162-0163).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshioka in view of Durduran, Krause, and Watanabe as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent 6,488,633 --as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as "Schnall".
With respect to claim 8, Yoshioka as modified by Durduran, Krause and Watanabe fails to teach the blood flow comparison unit compares a blood flow in the first measurement region in which a blood flow rate changes due to arteriovenous anastomosis with a blood flow in the second measurement region in which a change in the blood flow rate due to arteriovenous anastomosis is smaller than that in the first measurement region so as to estimate a change in arteriovenous anastomosis and output a result thereof.
Schnall teaches probe devices for non-invasive detection of medical conditions wherein probes comprise optical sensors that are oriented to measure volume changes of an underside of a finger in an area that contains a high proportion of arteriovenous anastomoses and in an area that does not contain a high proportion of arteriovenous anastomoses such that the blood flow characteristics of the finger can be determined (see Schnall, Col. 8, lines 49-61).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Yoshioka as modified by Durduran, Krause and Watanabe such that the blood flow comparison unit compares a blood flow in a first measurement region in which a blood flow rate changes due to arteriovenous anastomosis with a blood flow in a second measurement region in which a change in the blood flow rate due to arteriovenous anastomosis is smaller than that in the first measurement region so as to estimate a change in arteriovenous anastomosis and output a result thereof because that permits the complete characterization of the blood flow of a specific region by measuring in areas that have both a low and high proportion of arteriovenous anastomoses (see Schnall, Col. 8, lines 49-61).
With respect to claim 9, Yoshioka as modified by Durduran, Krause, Watanabe and Schnall teaches the blood flow analysis device according to claim 8, and further teaches the blood flow comparison unit estimates a change in the arteriovenous anastomosis (i.e., volume changes of the arteriovenous anastomosis that impact blood flow) (see Schnall, Col. 8, lines 49-61).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Destiny J Cruickshank whose telephone number is (571)270-0187. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/D.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3791