DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 1, lines 15-16, “device an image of which has been shot by the image-shooting device or not” should read – device, an image of which has been shot by the image-shooting device, or not --.
At claim 17, line 6, “device an image” should read – device, an image --.
At claim 18, lines 15-16, “device an image of which has been shot by the image-shooting device or not” should read – device, an image of which has been shot by the image-shooting device, or not --.
At claim 19, lines 15-16, “device an image of which has been shot by the image-shooting device or not” should read – device, an image of which has been shot by the image-shooting device, or not --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “display means for displaying indication identification information; and sending means for sending device identification information; …determination means for determining whether the person…is measuring the biological information” in claim 1, “face authentication means for performing face authentication” in claim 7, “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 § 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 (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 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 1-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neinhouse (US 20180101721 A1 – cited by applicant), hereinafter “Neinhouse”.
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 (Figure 1, S/C 121, BAC 118, Paragraphs 0049 and 0064); and sending means (Figure 1, interface 112) for sending device identification information (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 and the device identification information sent from the sending means (Figure 18, steps 1808-1814, Paragraphs 0069-0070).
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 3-4, Neinhouse teaches wherein the indication identification information is randomly generated by the biological information measuring device each time the biological information is measured (Paragraph 0064).
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 7-10, 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 (Paragraphs 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 on display means (Figure 1, display 110, S/C 121, BAC 118, Paragraphs 0049 and 0064) and sending device identification information 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 and the device identification information sent from the biological information measuring device (Figure 18, steps 1808-1814, Paragraphs 0069-0070).
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 on display means (Figure 1, display 110, S/C 121, BAC 118, Paragraphs 0049 and 0064) and sending device identification information 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 and the device identification information sent from the biological information measuring device (Figure 18, steps 1808-1814, Paragraphs 0069-0070).
Regarding clam 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).
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neinhouse as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Biondo et al. (US 20140375462 A1), hereinafter “Biondo”.
Regarding claim 16, Neinhouse fails 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.
Biondo teaches a biological information measuring system for measuring biological information of a person to be measured (Figure 1, 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 system of Neinhouse 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 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tussy (US 20160063235 A1 – cited by applicant), hereinafter “Tussy”.
Regarding claim 17, Neinhouse fails 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.
Tussy teaches a biometric authentication system (Figure 1, 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 system of Neinhouse 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABEL SEIFU ABEGAZ whose telephone number is (703)756-4502. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, M - F.
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, can be reached on (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
/A.S.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights