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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, see Applicant’s arguments pages 6-7, against the use of Vu. Applicant first argues that Vu does not teach the amended limitation of estimating the signal strength “in a normal state in which the living body does not intentionally move”. Examiner asserts that the subject intentionally moving is not part of the invention of Vu. Although a change in patient position may be expected during scanning, [0090]-[0091] teach that the radio wave emitter and receiver change positions in response to the patient moving to maintain the emitter and receiver at a desired distance from the patient. Thus, intentional patient movement is not desired when performing the method of Vu. Additionally, [0093] teaches that movement caused by respiration and/or heartbeat may be detected; neither respiration nor heartbeat comprise intentional movement. Though Vu captures a series of images, in which the series of images depicts breathing motion, this is the intended application of Vu. The system of Vu can be used to perform measurements that do not require patient movement. Furthermore, the claims of the instant application are directed to a single image. Movement cannot be detected from a single image. If considering only a single image obtained by Vu, taken either by itself or as part of the series of images, movement from the patient will not be depicted. Applicant further argues that Vu does not teach estimating a range of signal strength of the reflection signal. Examiner asserts that applying a bandpass filter to filter out noise from the signal comprises an estimation of the signal strength. In order to set the bandpass filter, a range of acceptable signals must be determined. All signals outside of this range would be considered noise and be filtered out. For both of these reasons, Examiner upholds the use of Vu.
Claim Objections
Objections to the claims have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 07/02/2025.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 2 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vu (US 2018/0049669).
Regarding claim 2, Vu teaches a biological information detection device comprising:
processing circuitry (computer, [0018] & [0097]):
to acquire a reflection signal, from a living body, of a radio wave emitted toward the living body ([0088]);
to acquire an image of the living body ([0083] & [0094]);
to perform image processing on the acquired image ([0083] & [0094]);
to estimate a possible range of signal strength ([0109] & [0122]-[0123]) of the reflection signal in a normal state in which the living body does not intentionally move ([0088] & [0093]) on a basis of a result of the image processing ([0109] & [0122]-[0123]); and
Paragraphs [0122]-[0123] teach collecting the strength of the received signals and filtering out the noise. By understanding which signals correspond to noise and are to be filtered out, Vu shows that a range of signal strength is estimated. Additionally, [0109] teaches applying a bandpass filter to filter out noise. Employing a bandpass filter comprises initially defining which signals correspond to the reflection signal and which correspond to noise, further demonstrating that the possible range of signal strength is estimated. Additionally intentional movements from the patient are not a part of the operation of the system. Paragraph [0093] teaches that interfering signals may be caused by respiration or heartbeat of the subject; neither respiration nor heartbeat are intentional movement.
to reduce, from the reflection signal, a signal having strength outside the estimated range of signal strength ([0109] & [0123]), wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to estimate a skeleton of the living body ([0185] & [0187]), and to estimate a possible range of signal strength of the reflection signal on a basis of the estimated skeleton ([0103]-[0105], [0107], & [0110]-[0111]).
Paragraphs [0185] & [0187] teach that a patient’s skeletal data is used when making measurements relating to the chest. Thus, references to detecting the chest region/chest movement, such as those in [0103]-[0105], [0107], & [0110]-[0111], are made by detecting the patient’s skeleton.
Claim 7 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 2.
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 ADAM KOLKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 1:00PM-10:00PM EDT.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached on (572)-270-1790. 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.
/ADAM D. KOLKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798