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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 and 22-26 are pending in this application. Claims 6-7 and 22-26 are withdrawn, Claims 15-21 are cancelled, and Claims 1-5 and 8-14 have been examined on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 drawn to Invention I and species B* (Claim 8) from Group I in the reply filed on 11/24/25 is acknowledged.
Newly added claims 22-26 are withdrawn from consideration because the newly added Invention Group of Claims 22-26 do not incorporate wherein the image capture device is configured to view the LED at a view-angle that is offset from an angle of far-field intensity maximum of the LED and appears to read on a different embodiment.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, line 2, “in contact with an eyelid” should be “in contact with the object’s eyelid”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auerbach (US20170367625A1) in view of Greivenkamp (“Camera Systems”, 2018, Geometrical and Instrumental Optics”).
Regarding Claim 1,
Auerbach teaches a system comprising: an image capture device (corresponding disclosure in at least [0026], where there is an image capture device (camera) “an imaging device, which can be for example a CMOS video camera, a 3D camera, a thermal imager, a light field camera or a depth camera”);
a light emitting diode (LED) configured to be disposed in an eye region (corresponding disclosure in at least [0047], where there is a marker that can be disposed in the eye region “A marker can be adhered to the eyelid, such as a thin retro-reflective adhesive sticker or else IR reflective polish can be applied to eyelids or eyelashes” and further in [0087], where the marker can be an LED “The markers can be for example patches made from retro-reflective material, geometric patterns on the blanket or nightgown, or low voltage LED lights embedded or attached to clothing or patches”),
wherein the image capture device is configured to view the LED at a view-angle (corresponding disclosure in at least [0146], where the camera is positioned at an angle to view the LED “The video sensor continuously tracks the markers that are positioned on the subject. The field of view should be set to include the markers from a perspective that most pronouncedly reveals the breathing movement”)
and processing circuitry (corresponding disclosure in at least [0025], where there is processing circuitry “power supply elements and circuitry for operating the signal generating elements”) configured to:
receive, from the image capture device, a sequence of images of the eye region (corresponding disclosure in at least [0096], where the camera captures a sequence of images “The following relates to the detection and tracking of the markers using 2D video images… Detection on the intensity image (or sequence of images) can proceed in the following steps”);
determine a motion of a feature within the eye region based on the received sequence of images (corresponding disclosure in at least [0047], where one of the motion features that can be determined include eye motion “The characteristics of eye micro movements are related to the level of sedation. The described sensor can be used in conjunction with a marker to track these movements as follows: A marker can be adhered to the eyelid, such as a thin retro-reflective adhesive sticker or else IR reflective polish can be applied to eyelids or eyelashes”
and determine a depth of anesthesia based on the determined motion (corresponding disclosure in at least [0047], where the depth of anesthesia (level of sedation) can be measured by the characteristics of the eye movements “The characteristics of eye micro movements are related to the level of sedation”).
Auerbach does not teach that is offset from an angle of far-field intensity maximum of the LED.
Greivenkamp, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a similar concept (camera and optics), of wherein the image capture device is offset from an angle of far-field intensity maximum of the LED (corresponding disclosure in at least [pg. 17-67] and [pg. 17-67], where off-axis (offset angle) imaging is taught “The light is sent back to the source. Off axis, the beam is also re-collimated and directed back to the source,” and further where far-field imaging is taught (imaging as far from the flash/LED as possible, which is completed to prevent or minimize the flash or glare) “Position the flash as far from the camera lens as possible. The retroreflection will be directed back to the flash and will not be seen by the camera lens”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated where the image capture device is offset from an angle of far field intensity as taught by Greivenkamp. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because angling the capturing device and positioning as far from the flash/target ensures that the light does not reflect back, which minimizes possible glare and distortion in images.
Regarding Claim 2, the combined references of Auerbach and Greivenkamp teach the limitations of Claim 1, and Auerbach further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
determine a motion signal based on the motion of the feature in the sequence of images (corresponding disclosure in at least [0096], where the motions are extracted from the sequence of images “the depth information can be obtained from standard 2D images or from a 3D camera or stereo camera for the first video frame or any frame in which the markers from the relatively recent frames were not all tracked, an attempt to detect the markers is carried out. Detection on the intensity image (or sequence of images) can proceed in the following steps”)
and filter the motion signal (corresponding disclosure in at least [0109], where
the motions are filtered “Once they are tracked, criteria for filtering them can be used based on characteristics of their movement. For example, markers that remain static for a long time even when subject makes some position change can be filtered. Furthermore, if one is concerned with tracking only breathing motion, non-static markers with a different frequency of motion (or uncorrelated motion) than the identified breathing markers are filtered”);
determine a depth of anesthesia based on the determined motion (corresponding disclosure in at least [0109]-[0110], where the patient’s motion (i.e. eye movement) is tracked, which determines the depth of anesthesia (subject’s awakening is quantified) “the tracking can be used as a filter as follows: the single frame detection method may be set to produce an abundance of objects some of which are not actual markers on the subject's body... Movement of non-marker features can also be tracked. For example, using IR illumination, the subject eyes are visible and can be tracked in a similar manner as an artificial marker. In this way, subject's awakenings [from anesthesia] can be quantified through measurement and recording of the times the subject's eyes are open.”).
Regarding Claim 3, the combined references of Auerbach and Greivenkamp teach the limitations of Claim 1, and Auerbach further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine a region of interest including the feature (corresponding disclosure in at least [0096], where there is a region of interest (marked pixels) “only pixels which surpass this value by a set number of standard deviations are marked. The standard deviation is calculated from the image histogram”);
sum the pixels of the region of interest along a direction in each of the images of the sequence of images to obtain a one-dimensional sum signal (corresponding disclosure in at least [0096], where the pixels are summed (clustered) “The marked pixels are clustered to connected components using chain clustering for example. Two pixels belong to the same cluster if there is a path of marked pixels that connect them, each within distance d of each other”)
determine a difference between the values of the summed pixels at two points along the one-dimensional sum signal for each of the images of the sequence of images (corresponding disclosure in at least [0101], where the displacement (difference) between the marker pixels are determined “Successful tracking means that the positions of all the detected markers were determined in each frame, that the frame to frame displacement of each marker does not surpass a predefined threshold and that this displacement is consistent across the marker pixels. The threshold is set using the maximal expected speed of the breathing motion. It can be later adjusted per patient during the baseline setting per patient described below”); and
determine the motion signal based on the determined differences for each of the images of the sequence of images (corresponding disclosure in at least [0101], where the motion is determined “. The threshold is set using the maximal expected speed of the breathing motion. It can be later adjusted per patient during the baseline setting per patient described below”).
Regarding Claim 4, the combined references of Auerbach and Greivenkamp teach the limitations of Claim 1, and Auerbach further teaches an ocular microtremor probe comprising a pattern disposed in the eye region, the pattern including the feature captured in the sequence of images (corresponding disclosure in at least [0100], where there is a pattern “ In the cases where the marker produces a variable shape and dispersed light pattern the clustering is carried out differently” and [0047], where the patterned marker can be disposed on the eye “ A marker can be adhered to the eyelid, such as a thin retro-reflective adhesive sticker or else IR reflective polish can be applied to eyelids or eyelashes” and further where it’s described that the feature can be tracked “It is possible to track movements by detecting and tracking the boundaries between eyelashes and eyelids in the image”).
Regarding Claim 5, the combined references of Auerbach and Greivenkamp teach the limitations of Claim 4, and Auerbach further teaches wherein the pattern disposed in the eye region is disposed on a patch configured to be attached to a person's eyelid (corresponding disclosure in at least [0087], where the pattern is on a patch “Markers are applied either directly to the subject's body or integrated to a covering of the subject such as his clothing, his blanket, an elastic strap, or a bandage for example. The markers can be for example patches made from retro-reflective material, geometric patterns on the blanket or nightgown, or low voltage LED lights embedded or attached to clothing or patches”
Regarding Claim 8, the combined references of Auerbach and Greivenkamp teach the limitations of Claim 4, and Auerbach further teaches wherein the pattern disposed in the eye region comprises the LED (corresponding disclosure in at least [0047], where there is a marker that can be disposed in the eye region “A marker can be adhered to the eyelid, such as a thin retro-reflective adhesive sticker or else IR reflective polish can be applied to eyelids or eyelashes” and further in [0087], where the marker can be an LED “The markers can be for example patches made from retro-reflective material, geometric patterns on the blanket or nightgown, or low voltage LED lights embedded or attached to clothing or patches”).
Regarding Claim 9, the combined references of Auerbach and Greivenkamp teach the limitations of Claim 8, and Auerbach further teaches a power source electrically coupled to the LED (corresponding disclosure in at least [0131], where the LED has a power source (some method of power as there needs to be a way to limit the power consumptions of the light) “in order to limit power consumption the extra LEDs are turned off during regular monitoring or flash in some time dependent way to reduce power consumption” and further in [0170] “Electrical contact can be provided from the power supply located in disposable part 602, through buttons 608 and 608′, although of course many alternative ways exist of conveying power from the batteries to the LED assembly 601”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combined references of Auerbach and Greivenkamp teach the limitations of Claim 8, and Auerbach further teaches wherein the LED is placed within a transparent area in a patch configured to be placed in contact with an eyelid (corresponding disclosure in at least [0171], where the LED is placed on a transparent material “Of course, the top portion 612 of LED assembly 601 is made of material of a transparency sufficient to allow the required amount of light generated by the LED to be viewed from the outside”).
Regarding Claim 11, the combined references of Auerbach and Greivenkamp teach the limitations of Claim 1, and Auerbach further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to track the feature and to cause the image capture device to keep the feature within the field of view of the image capture device (corresponding disclosure in at least [0047], where the device will maintain a proper field of view to keep the feature in view “The choice of camera sensor should be made accordingly and also the placement should be closer to narrow the field of view. One possibility is to attach the camera to an eyeglass frame rather than to the bed”).
Regarding Claim 12, the combined references of Auerbach and Greivenkamp teach the limitations of Claim 1, and Auerbach further teaches wherein the feature comprises a high contrast object added to the eye region (corresponding disclosure in at least [0047], where there is a high contrast object (the thin retro-reflective adhesive or the reflective polish, which is a contrasting object that can easily be detected “A marker can be adhered to the eyelid, such as a thin retro-reflective adhesive sticker or else IR reflective polish can be applied to eyelids or eyelashes”).
Regarding Claim 13, the combined references of Auerbach and Greivenkamp teach the limitations of Claim 1, and Auerbach further teaches wherein the feature is located in a plurality of regions of interest within each image of the sequence of images (corresponding disclosure in at least [0101], where the frames (sequence of images) track the feature (the clusters), which is the region of interest “Once the clusters in a frame are detected, they are tracked over the following frames (as described below). If the tracking was not successful for all the detected markers, the detection is reinitialized on the new current frame”).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auerbach (US20170367625A1) and Greivenkamp (“Camera Systems”, 2018, Geometrical and Instrumental Optics”) as applied in Claim 1 and in further view of Lesmy (WO2010045724A1)
Regarding Claim 14, the combined references of Auerbach and Greivenkamp teach the limitations of Claim 1, and Auerbach further teaches the processing circuitry and the motion signals from a plurality of regions of interest (corresponding disclosure in at least), but does not teach generating a composite signal.
Lesmy, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches generating a composite signal (corresponding disclosure in at least [0086], where composite signals focused around a region of interest is generated “The extracted rhythmic signal and spikes are shown in Figure 7B, as well as their recombination to form a noise-reduced composite signal containing the restored action potentials”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated generating a composite signal as taught by Lesmy. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because it incorporates the multiple types of information into a single signal for further image analysis.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 PST.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/K.E.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/SERKAN AKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797