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 .
Amendment Entered
In response to the amendment filed on September 18th, 2025, amended claims 1 and 17-19, and new claim 21 are entered. Claims 3-4 and 9 are canceled. Claims 1-2, 5-8, and 10-21 are currently under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks and amendments with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered. The objections are withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Applicant's arguments, filed on September 18th, 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 use the word "means" and are 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 "means" 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: “sending means for sending device identification information” in Claim 1, “receiving means for receiving” in Claim 1, “determination means for determining whether the person is measuring the biological information” in Claims 1 and 17, “face authentication means for performing face authentication” in Claims 7-8 and 10-12, “body movement determination means for determining whether the person is moving” in Claim 13, “performance status determination means for determining whether the device is properly measuring” in Claim 14.
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.
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.
Claim 21 is 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 21 recites the limitation "the total measurement number" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 5-8, 10-15 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neinhouse (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0101721; cited by Applicant), hereinafter “Neinhouse” in view of Saito et al (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0203990), hereinafter “Saito”.
Regarding Claim 1, Neinhouse teaches a biological information measuring system (Figure 1, Abstract) comprising:
a biological information measuring device for measuring biological information of a person to be measured (Figure 1, testing device 102, Paragraphs 0047 and 0049);
an image-shooting device (Figure 1, camera 138); and
an information-processing device (Figure 1, server 180), wherein the biological information measuring device comprises:
display means (Figure 1, display 110) for displaying indication identification information generated by the biological information measuring device (Figure 1, S/C 121, BAC 118, Paragraphs 0049 and 0064); and
sending means (Figure 1, interface 112) for sending device identification information generated by the biological information measuring device (Figure 1, S/N 120, Paragraph 0055), and wherein the information-processing device comprises:
receiving means for receiving image information acquired by the image-shooting device shooting an image of the indication identification information displayed on the display means and the device identification information sent from the sending means (Paragraph 0059 lines 16-19, the examiner notes that the server 180 would need some form of a component for receiving communications from communication device 130); and
determination means (Figure 1, web application 184) for determining whether the person to be measured is measuring the biological information using the biological information measuring device an image of which has been shot by the image-shooting device, or not based on the indication identification information indicated by the image information (Figure 18, steps 1808-1814, Paragraphs 0069-0070),
wherein the indication identification information is randomly generated by the biological information measuring device each time the biological information is measured (Paragraph 0064).
Neinhouse fails to specifically teach determining whether the person to be measured is measuring the biological information using the biological information measuring device, an image of which has been shot by the image-shooting device, or not based on the indication identification information indicated by the image information corresponding to the device identification information sent from the sending means; and wherein the indication identification information and the device identification information are randomly generated by the biological information measuring device each time the biological information is measured.
In a similar technical field, Saito teaches an information processing system, information processing method, and computer readable medium (Abstract), determining whether the person to be measured is measuring the biological information using the biological information measuring device, an image of which has been shot by the image-shooting device, or not based on the indication identification information indicated by the image information corresponding to the device identification information sent from the sending means (The visitor authentication information is key data or an encrypted face photograph image which is a face photograph image of the prospective visitor 1 encrypted using the key data. The key data used for encrypting the face photograph image of the prospective visitor 1 is, for example, a random number; Paragraphs 0041-0042; Since the second identifier generation unit 93 generates the second identifier in the same generation procedure as that of the first identifier, if the authentication data is the visitor authentication information (the random number), the second identifier generated by the second identifier generation unit 93 matches the first identifier; Paragraph 0105); and wherein the indication identification information and the device identification information are randomly generated by the biological information measuring device each time the biological information is measured (A first identifier generation unit 43 acquires the visitor authentication information, that is, the random number used by the encryption unit 42 for encryption, from the encryption unit 42. Then, the first identifier generation unit 43 generates the first identifier from the acquired random number; Paragraph 0062; Since the second identifier generation unit 93 generates the second identifier in the same generation procedure as that of the first identifier, if the authentication data is the visitor authentication information (the random number), the second identifier generated by the second identifier generation unit 93 matches the first identifier; Paragraph 0105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the randomly generated information teachings of Saito into those of Neinhouse in order to encrypt the face photograph with a random number in order to protect the user from security risks if the face photograph image leaks out due to a hacking or a virus attack to the system (Saito Paragraphs 0009-0011).
Regarding Claim 2, Neinhouse teaches wherein the biological information of the person to be measured is breath alcohol concentration of the person to be measured (Paragraph 0047).
Regarding Claims 5-6, Neinhouse teaches wherein the indication identification information is a value indicating a measurement result obtained by the biological information measuring device (Figure 1, BAC 118, Paragraph 0049).
Regarding Claims 7-8 and 10, Neinhouse teaches wherein the image-shooting device (Figure 1, camera 138) shoots an image of a face of the person to be measured who is performing measurement with the biological information measuring device as well as the image of the indication identification information displayed on the display means (Paragraphs 0054 lines 6-9 and 0064), and wherein the information- processing device (Figure 1, server 180) comprises face authentication means for performing face authentication on the person to be measured based on face image information that is indicated by the image information and indicates the face of the person to be measured (Paragraph 0059 lines 21-29).
Regarding Claim 11, Neinhouse teaches wherein the face authentication means performs the face authentication based on a plurality of pieces of face image information, images of which have been shot continuously (Paragraph 0169).
Regarding Claim 12, Neinhouse teaches wherein the face authentication means performs face authentication on the person to be measured with the face image information and registered face image information that is registered in advance and indicates the face of the person to be measured (Paragraph 0059 lines 21-29 "based upon stored images of the test subject").
Regarding Claim 13, Neinhouse teaches body movement determination means for determining whether the person to be measured is moving or not based on the image information (Figure 19, liveness analyzer 1947, Paragraphs 0172-0175).
Regarding Claim 14, Neinhouse teaches wherein each time the biological information is measured, the biological information measuring device (Figure 1, testing device 102) sends measurement performance information that is information on how the measurement of the biological information is performed to the information- processing device (Figure 1, biometric reader 152, Paragraphs 0057 and 0060), and wherein the information-processing device (Figure 1, server 180) comprises performance status determination means for determining whether the biological information measuring device is properly measuring the biological information or not based on the measurement performance information (Paragraph 0060).
Regarding Claim 15, Neinhouse teaches wherein the biological information of the person to be measured is measured during a predetermined time period (Paragraph 0075).
Regarding Claim 18, Neinhouse teaches a fraudulent-measurement determination method being an authentication method for a biological information measuring system (Figure 1, Abstract) comprising: a biological information measuring device for measuring biological information of a person to be measured (Figure 1, testing device 102, Paragraphs 0047 and 0049); an image-shooting device (Figure 1, camera 138); and an information-processing device (Figure 1, server 180), the fraudulent- measurement determination method having:
a first step of displaying indication identification information, generated by the biological information measuring device, on display means (Figure 1, display 110, S/C 121, BAC 118, Paragraphs 0049 and 0064) and sending device identification information, generated by the biological information measuring device, to the information-processing device (Figure 1, S/N 120, Paragraph 0055, 0059 lines 16-19);
a second step of the image-shooting device shooting an image of the indication identification information displayed on the display means (Paragraphs 0054 lines 6-9 and 0064);
a third step of the information-processing device receiving image information acquired by the image-shooting device shooting the image and the device identification information sent from the biological information measuring device (Paragraph 0059 lines 16-19); and
a fourth step of the information-processing device determining whether the person to be measured is measuring the biological information using the biological information measuring device, an image of which has been shot by the image-shooting device, or not based on the indication identification information indicated by the image information (Figure 18, steps 1808-1814, Paragraphs 0069-0070),
wherein the indication identification information is randomly generated by the biological information measuring device each time the biological information is measured (Paragraph 0064).
Neinhouse fails to specifically teach determining whether the person to be measured is measuring the biological information using the biological information measuring device, an image of which has been shot by the image-shooting device, or not based on the indication identification information indicated by the image information corresponding to the device identification information sent from the biological information measuring device; and wherein the indication identification information and the device identification information are randomly generated by the biological information measuring device each time the biological information is measured.
In a similar technical field, Saito teaches an information processing system, information processing method, and computer readable medium (Abstract), determining whether the person to be measured is measuring the biological information using the biological information measuring device, an image of which has been shot by the image-shooting device, or not based on the indication identification information indicated by the image information corresponding to the device identification information sent from the biological information measuring device (The visitor authentication information is key data or an encrypted face photograph image which is a face photograph image of the prospective visitor 1 encrypted using the key data. The key data used for encrypting the face photograph image of the prospective visitor 1 is, for example, a random number; Paragraphs 0041-0042; Since the second identifier generation unit 93 generates the second identifier in the same generation procedure as that of the first identifier, if the authentication data is the visitor authentication information (the random number), the second identifier generated by the second identifier generation unit 93 matches the first identifier; Paragraph 0105); and wherein the indication identification information and the device identification information are randomly generated by the biological information measuring device each time the biological information is measured (A first identifier generation unit 43 acquires the visitor authentication information, that is, the random number used by the encryption unit 42 for encryption, from the encryption unit 42. Then, the first identifier generation unit 43 generates the first identifier from the acquired random number; Paragraph 0062; Since the second identifier generation unit 93 generates the second identifier in the same generation procedure as that of the first identifier, if the authentication data is the visitor authentication information (the random number), the second identifier generated by the second identifier generation unit 93 matches the first identifier; Paragraph 0105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the randomly generated information teachings of Saito into those of Neinhouse in order to encrypt the face photograph with a random number in order to protect the user from security risks if the face photograph image leaks out due to a hacking or a virus attack to the system (Saito Paragraphs 0009-0011).
Regarding Claim 19, Neinhouse teaches a fraudulent-measurement determination program (Paragraph 0015) for a biological information measuring system (Figure 1, Abstract) comprising:
a biological information measuring device for measuring biological information of a person to be measured (Figure 1, testing device 102, Paragraphs 0047 and 0049);
an image-shooting device (Figure 1, camera 138); and
an information-processing device (Figure 1, server 180), the fraudulent-measurement determination program being for causing a computer to execute:
a first step of displaying indication identification information, generated by the biological information measuring device, on display means (Figure 1, display 110, S/C 121, BAC 118, Paragraphs 0049 and 0064) and sending device identification information, generated by the biological information measuring device to the information-processing device (Figure 1, S/N 120, Paragraph 0055, 0059 lines 16-19);
a second step of the image-shooting device shooting an image of the indication identification information displayed on the display means (Paragraphs 0054 lines 6-9 and 0064);
a third step of the information-processing device receiving image information acquired by the image-shooting device shooting the image and the device identification information sent from the biological information measuring device (Paragraph 0059 lines 16-19); and
a fourth step of the information-processing. device determining whether the person to be measured is measuring the biological information using the biological information measuring device, an image of which has been shot by the image-shooting device, or not based on the indication identification information indicated by the image information (Figure 18, steps 1808-1814, Paragraphs 0069-0070),
wherein the indication identification information is randomly generated by the biological information measuring device each time the biological information is measured (Paragraph 0064).
Neinhouse fails to specifically teach determining whether the person to be measured is measuring the biological information using the biological information measuring device, an image of which has been shot by the image-shooting device, or not based on the indication identification information indicated by the image information corresponding to the device identification information sent from the biological information measuring device; and wherein the indication identification information and the device identification information are randomly generated by the biological information measuring device each time the biological information is measured.
In a similar technical field, Saito teaches an information processing system, information processing method, and computer readable medium (Abstract), determining whether the person to be measured is measuring the biological information using the biological information measuring device, an image of which has been shot by the image-shooting device, or not based on the indication identification information indicated by the image information corresponding to the device identification information sent from the biological information measuring device (The visitor authentication information is key data or an encrypted face photograph image which is a face photograph image of the prospective visitor 1 encrypted using the key data. The key data used for encrypting the face photograph image of the prospective visitor 1 is, for example, a random number; Paragraphs 0041-0042; Since the second identifier generation unit 93 generates the second identifier in the same generation procedure as that of the first identifier, if the authentication data is the visitor authentication information (the random number), the second identifier generated by the second identifier generation unit 93 matches the first identifier; Paragraph 0105); and wherein the indication identification information and the device identification information are randomly generated by the biological information measuring device each time the biological information is measured (A first identifier generation unit 43 acquires the visitor authentication information, that is, the random number used by the encryption unit 42 for encryption, from the encryption unit 42. Then, the first identifier generation unit 43 generates the first identifier from the acquired random number; Paragraph 0062; Since the second identifier generation unit 93 generates the second identifier in the same generation procedure as that of the first identifier, if the authentication data is the visitor authentication information (the random number), the second identifier generated by the second identifier generation unit 93 matches the first identifier; Paragraph 0105).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the randomly generated information teachings of Saito into those of Neinhouse in order to encrypt the face photograph with a random number in order to protect the user from security risks if the face photograph image leaks out due to a hacking or a virus attack to the system (Saito Paragraphs 0009-0011).
Regarding Claim 20, Neinhouse teaches a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium holding the fraudulent measurement determination program according to claim 19 (Paragraph 0015, see claim 19 rejection above).
Regarding Claim 21, Neinhouse teaches wherein the measurement performance information is the total measurement number (Paragraph 0060).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neinhouse and Saito as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Biondo et al (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0375462 A1; previously cited), hereinafter “Biondo”.
Regarding Claim 16, Neinhouse and Saito fail to teach the person to be measured is a crew member of an aircraft, and wherein the predetermined time period is at least one of specified time periods before and after an operation time period of the aircraft that the crew member boards for service.
In a similar technical field, Biondo teaches methods and apparatus for detection and reporting of vehicle operator impairment (Abstract), wherein the person to be measured is a crew member of an aircraft (Paragraph 0014 lines 15-17), and wherein the biological information of the person to be measured is measured during a specified time period before operation of the aircraft that the crew member boards for service (Paragraph 0060 "before allowing the starting event on every driver cycle").
Doing so could would help prevent an intoxicated person from operating an aircraft. It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Neinhouse and Saito such that the person to be measured is a crew member of an aircraft, and wherein the predetermined time period is at least one of specified time periods before and after an operation time period of the aircraft that the crew member boards for service as taught by Biondo in order to prevent an intoxicated person from operating an aircraft.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neinhouse and Saito as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tussy (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0063235; cited by applicant), hereinafter “Tussy”.
Regarding Claim 17, Neinhouse and Saito fail to teach the biological information measuring device comprises an accelerometer, and wherein if the accelerometer detects an acceleration greater than or equal to a specified value while the biological information measuring device is performing the measurement, the determination means determines that the person to be measured is not measuring the biological information using the biological information measuring device an image of which has been shot by the image-shooting device.
In a similar technical field, Tussy teaches a biometric authentication system (Abstract), comprising a biometric capturing device (Figure 1, mobile device 112) comprising an accelerometer (Figure 2, accelerometer 272), and wherein if the accelerometer detects an acceleration greater than or equal to a specified value while obtaining biometric information, the system determines that the person to be authenticated is improperly using the system (Paragraphs 0172-1073). Tussy also teaches that doing so would make it very difficult for the user to successfully fool the system (Paragraph 0173).
It would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Neinhouse and Saito such that the biological information measuring device comprises an accelerometer, and wherein if the accelerometer detects an acceleration greater than or equal to a specified value while the biological information measuring device is performing the measurement, the determination means determines that the person to be measured is not measuring the biological information using the biological information measuring device an image of which has been shot by the image-shooting device as taught by Tussy in order to make it very difficult for the user to successfully fool the system (Tussy Paragraph 0173).
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 CHANEL J YOON whose telephone number is (571) 272-2695. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on 571-272-4233. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHANEL J YOON/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights