DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-5 and 7-16 are pending.
Claim 6 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but it is moot in light of a new ground of rejection. See discussion below.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10-11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (US 20180045573 A1, 2018-02-15) in view of Schlagheck et al. (US 20090048523 A1, 2009-02-19) (hereinafter “Schlagheck”).
Regarding claims 1-3, 10-11, and 13, Johnson teaches a system for detecting a disease in a person, comprising: an acquisition device configured to acquire examination data on the person, and a data processing device (e.g., 202, Fig. 2) arranged to receive the examination data, with the data processing device including a correction table with at least one corrective term corresponding to a measurement error or to variation of a physical characteristic between individuals (e.g., [0050]-[0051]; [0046] (“The color components are converted to another color system, such as HSL, that allows for the extraction of luminance. (Alternatively, the HSV color system can be used and the value parameter can be extracted and used instead of the luminance parameter.) Once luminance is extracted, the processor 202 compares it against a lookup table of luminance versus emissivity [construed as the recited “correction table”]. The processor 202 selects the emissivity that best corresponds to the extracted luminance. This revised emissivity is used in Eq. 1 to compute T.sub.hot”)); the data processing device being configured to correct the examination data using the at least one corrective term and consequently generate a corrected value (e.g., [0051]), the data processing device including a memory of reference values and being configured to compare the reference values against the corrected value (e.g., [0037], [0066]-[0067]) (as recited in claim 1).
Note that Johnson also teaches measuring temperature at different places on the body (e.g., Table 1).
Although Johnson taches use of a correction table (e.g., [0046]), as discussed above, Johnson does not expressly teach use of a database and a corrective term corresponding to a variation of a physical characteristic between individuals that includes at least body mass.
Schlagheck teaches use of databases and corrections based on body mass. See, e.g., [0007] (“The present invention addresses the need for a controlled environment, emissivity corrections and actual tissue relating to body mass. At present this biophysical imaging technique is performed in a two dimensional world. However, when imaging the human body's infrared radiation and measuring the heat transfer we are attempting to solve a three-dimensional problem in a two dimensional world. Currently, there has not been produced a way for processing the observed data at a theoretical and primary level. Without question all current thermal imaging techniques are flawed”), [0073], [0051], [0079].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Schlagheck with the inventio taught by Johnson such that the invention further comprises a data processing device with a database arranged to receive the examination data, with the data processing device including a correction table with at least one corrective term corresponding to a measurement error and to variation of a physical characteristic between individuals that includes at least body mass (as recited in claim 1); wherein the data processing device is configured to process the examination data so that it is comparable against one or more reference values (as recited in claim 2); wherein the acquisition device includes a radar for acquiring examination data relating to a vital sign of the person, a thermal camera for acquiring examination data representative of temperature, and a camera configured to operate in the visible light range (e.g., [0018], [0020], [0027] of Johnson) (as recited in claim 3); wherein the examination data measured includes temperatures measured at different points of a body of the person (as recited in claim 10); wherein the acquisition device is configured to acquire examination data comprising an external temperature of the person, and one or more of a temperature measured on a cheek of the person, a temperature measured on the tip of a nose of the person, a maximum temperature of the face and a temperature of an item of clothing on the person (as recited in claim 11); further comprising a display device configured to display diagnostic information for diagnosing the disease based on an analysis of the examination data (e.g., [0035] of Johnson) (as recited in claim 13) in order to improve the accuracy of the invention.
Claims 4-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Schlagheck, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Olson et al. (US 20200194106 A1, 2020-06-18) (hereinafter “Olson”).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 7-9, Johnson teaches a system for detecting a disease in a person, as discussed above. But Johnson does not teach the specific limitations recited in the claims at issue. Olson teaches use of IR cameras (e.g., [0030]), correlation with demographic data (e.g., [0068]) or personalized historical data (e.g., [0065]), and machine learning algorithms and sensor fusion (e.g., [0065]-[0068]) for the purposes of managing various biological process, such as hydration, sleep, and metabolism (e.g., [0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Olson with the invention taught by Johnson such that wherein the acquisition device includes an NIR camera with an illuminator, capable of operating in the near infrared, and arranged to acquire examination data representative of ambient temperature, ambient light and time of day (as recited in claim 4); wherein the examination data includes representation of characteristics of the person chosen from among: temperature characteristic, a cardiac characteristic, a respiratory characteristic, and a blood circulation characteristic (as recited in claim 5); wherein the correction table includes corrective terms corresponding to measurement errors and to variations between persons, associated with their characteristics selected from a group of: age, gender, and body mass (as recited in claim 7); wherein the data processing device is arranged to carry out an amalgamation of data resulting from the acquisition of the examination data from the camera and the radar, wherein the vital data include one or more of respiratory rate, respiration amplitude, inhalation time, exhalation time, heart rate and arrhythmia (as recited in claim 8); wherein the acquisition device includes a NIR camera, a FIR camera and a radar, the data processing device being configured to carry out a correction by taking into account, as threshold values, the circadian cycle and the ambient temperature, while correcting drifts in measurements of the NIR and FIR cameras and of the radar (as recited in claim 9) in order to improve the accuracy of the invention for the purposes of managing various biological processes.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Schlagheck, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Garg (US 20180330435 A1, 2018-11-15) (hereinafter “Garg”).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Johnson teaches a system for detecting a disease in a person, as discussed above. But Johnson does not teach the specific limitations recited in the claims at issue, e.g., use of artificial intelligence and object identification. Garg discloses the general teaching (i.e., widely applicable) that artificial intelligence and object identification can be used for temperature determination. See, e.g., [0011] (“. The system can then implement computer vision (e.g., feature extraction, object recognition, template matching) and/or artificial intelligence techniques (e.g., neural networks) to extract various quantitative and qualitative data from this region of interest, such as … temperature.”) (emphases added).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Garg with the invention taught by Johnson (in view of Schlagheck) such that wherein the acquisition device is configured to obtain an external temperature of the person by averaging over time two or more temperatures of a surface defined by pixels originating from an image from an infrared camera in proximity to the person with an object identification algorithm (as recited in claim 13); wherein the data processing unit includes an artificial intelligence unit configured to process the examination data obtained by the acquisition device and provide diagnostic information of the person (as recited in claim 14) in order to improve the accuracy of the invention.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson in view of Schlagheck and Garg, as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Davis et al. (US 20200281532 A1, 2020-09-10) (hereinafter “Davis”).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Johnson teaches a system for detecting a disease in a person, as discussed above. But Johnson does not teach the specific elapsed times recited in the claims at issue. Davis discloses the recited elapsed times. See, e.g., [0021]-[0022].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Davis with the invention taught by Johnson (in view of Schlagheck and Garg) such that wherein the diagnostic information is provided within 30 to 120 seconds from the acquisition device initially obtaining the examination data (as recited in claim 15); wherein the diagnostic information is provided within 30 to 60 seconds from the acquisition device initially obtaining the examination data (as recited in claim 16) in order to improve the accuracy of the invention.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T LUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1860. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, M-F (generally).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gary Jackson, can be reached on 571-272-4697. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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.
Scott Luan, Ph.D.
/SCOTT LUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792