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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 17, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's response to the last office action, filed June 17, 2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1, 9, and 10 are amended; claims 2-8, and 11-22 are cancelled; and claims 23-37 are new. By this amendment, claims 1, 9-10, and 23-37 are now pending for examination.
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, 9-10, and 28-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al, (US-PGPUB 20210210198) in view of Hanson et al, (US-PGPUB 20210049887); and further in view of Ramanathan et al, (US-PGPUB 20210304574)
Regarding claim 1, Lin et al discloses an information processing apparatus,
(see at least: Fig. 1, “care system”), comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor, (see at
least: Par. 0065, a memory circuit (not shown) of the control circuit 130, “i.e., the control circuit 130 implicitly include a memory and processor”), configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire an image captured by an imaging apparatus, (see at least: Fig. 6, Par. 0056, the care system 600 of FIG. 6 uses the location sensing system 120B configured to capture multiple pictures of the patient in the space 610; and from Par. 0057, the location sensing system 120B comprises one or more thermal imaging circuits 710, [i.e., acquire an image, “implicit by capturing multiple pictures of the patient”, captured by an imaging apparatus, “one or more thermal imaging circuits 710”]); and
display a notification on a display in a case where a sum of a plurality of
determination results within a first time period is equal to or greater than a threshold value, , , (see at least: Par. 0056, providing the captured pictures to the control circuit 130 ; and from Par. 0058, the control circuit 130 generates different behavior probabilities based on the single picture and the multiple pictures captured by the location sensing system 120B; and from Par. 0065, control circuit 130 sums up the first behavior probability PBa and the second behavior probabilities PBb-1, PBb-2, and PBb-3 to generate a result of sum, and determining whether the result of sum is larger than a probability threshold, and if the sum of result is larger than the probability threshold, the control circuit 130 determines that the current behavior of the patient corresponds to one of the multiple predetermined bed-exit behaviors, and the control circuit 130 transmits a warning signal to the host device 12, the cloud server 16, and the mobile device 18 of the healthcare worker; and from Par. 0075, when the host device 12 receives the warning signal, an icon of “Bed exit” of the display area 22 may display a predetermined color, flickering light, or a combination thereof, [i.e., display a notification on a display, “the host device 12 receives the warning signal, and may display a predetermined color, flickering light”, in a case where a sum of a plurality of determination results within a first time period is equal to or greater than a threshold value, “if the sum of result of the first behavior probability and the second behavior probabilities, is larger than the probability threshold”, wherein the sum of the plurality of determination results includes: a first determination result determined using a first behavior of the person, and a second determination result determined using a second behavior of the person, “the result of sum includes the first behavior probability and the second behavior probabilities, which are implicitly determined from the first behavior of patient and second behaviors of patient, respectively”.
Lin et al does not expressly disclose determining whether a person continues a
behavior using the acquired image; where the first time period being changed using a condition; and wherein the second behavior of the person is performed after a second time period following a detection of the first behavior.
However, Hanson discloses determining whether a person continues a
behavior using the acquired image, (see at least: Par. 0067-0068, performing analysis of the captured images, and detecting possible presence of a prone individual on the ground in the room, and the system 400 also detects sensor inactivity across all sensors after detecting the potential fall event based on output from the on-body sensor, [i.e., determining whether a person continues a behavior, “implicit by detecting sensor inactivity across all sensors after detecting the potential fall”, using the acquired image, “the potential fall is implicitly detected by performing analysis of the captured images”]). Hanson further discloses that the first time period being changed using a condition, (see at least: Par. 0103, classification sensitivity may be configured by the user based on manipulation of variables associated with any of the aforementioned steps. For example, fall sensitivity could be set by adjusting the interval of sensed inactivity or the threshold for decreased activity, [i.e., the first time period, “time interval or threshold”, being changed, “adjusted”, using a condition, “classification sensitivity may be configured by the user based on sensed inactivity or decreased activity”]).
Lin et al and Hanson are combinable because they are both concerned with object tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Lin et al, to performing analysis of the captured images, as though by Hanson, in order to detect potential fall event based sensor inactivity across all sensors after detecting the potential fall, (Par. 0067).
The combine teaching Lin et al and Hanson as whole does not expressly disclose wherein the second behavior of the person is performed after a second time period following a detection of the first behavior.
However, Ramanathan discloses wherein the second behavior of the person is performed after a second time period following a detection of the first behavior, (see at least: Par. 0099, classifying the portions of the first set of images as indicative of human activity (308), receiving a second set of images captured by the camera after the first set of images (310), and determining that the second set of images likely shows human activity based on analyzing portions of the second set of images that correspond to the particular portions of the first set of images classified as indicative of human activity (312), [i.e., wherein the second behavior of the person is performed after a second time period following a detection of the first behavior, “implicit by the human activity in the second set of images being likely performed after the human activity in the first set of images, as the second set of images are captured after the first set of images”]).
Lin, Hanson, and Ramanathan are combinable because they are all concerned with object tracking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the combine teaching Lin et al and Hanson, to perform the optical flow in the set of images, as though by Ramanathan, in order to detect one or more human activities, (Ramanathan, Par. 0099).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. As such, claim 9 is rejected for at least similar rational.
The Examiner further acknowledged the following additional limitation(s): “an information processing method”. However, Lin discloses the “information processing method), (see at least: Par. 0058, method 800A of Fig. 8A).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. As such, claim 10 is rejected for at least similar rational.
The Examiner further acknowledged the following additional limitation(s): “a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that causes an information processing apparatus”. However, Hanson et al disclose the “non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that causes an information processing apparatus”, (Hanson, see at least: Par. 0114, “a computer program product tangibly embodied in a machine-readable storage device for execution by a programmable processor”).
Regarding claim 23, the combine teaching Lin, Hanson, and Ramanathan as whole discloses limitations of claim 9.
Hanson further discloses wherein determining whether the person continues the behavior comprises acquiring a length of time during which the person continues the behavior, (Hanson, see at least: Par. 0066-0067, detecting sensor inactivity across all sensors after detecting the potential fall event, implicitly by detecting a threshold period of time of inactivity event). See also, Par. 0106, Also, Hanson discloses if an impact is detected, orientation and position are indicative of a human in a fallen state, and a period of inactivity has exceeded a defined threshold, then the system 400 classifies the event as a fall, “i.e., implicitly acquiring period of inactivity that has exceeded a defined threshold of inactivity”).
Regarding claim 24, the combine teaching Lin, Hanson, and Ramanathan as whole discloses limitations of claim 9.
Lin et al further discloses wherein each of the first behavior and the second behavior is a behavior indicating a potentially dangerous condition of the person, (Lin, see at least: Par. 0065, the control circuit 130 determines that the current behavior of the patient corresponds to one of the multiple predetermined bed-exit behaviors, [i.e., potentially dangerous condition of the person, “bed-exit behaviors”).
Regarding claim 25, the combine teaching Lin, Hanson, and Ramanathan as whole discloses limitations of claim 9.
Lin et al further discloses wherein the behavior indicating the potentially dangerous condition of the person includes at least one of a falling over, a sitting down, or a crouching, (Lin et al, Par. 0040, the multiple predetermined bed-exit behaviors comprises … sitting on the bedside, “i.e., sitting down”).
Regarding claim 26, the combine teaching Lin, Hanson, and Ramanathan as whole discloses limitations of claim 9.
Lin further discloses wherein the first behavior and the second behavior are same type of behavior, (see at least: Par. 0056, the control circuit 130 calculates according to the relative position information and the care data 132 stored in advanced therein to determine whether the current behavior of the patient corresponds to one of the multiple predetermined bed-exit behaviors, [i.e., the first behavior, “current behavior”, and the second behavior, “predetermined behavior”, are same type of behavior, “bed-exit behaviors”]).
Regarding claim 27, the combine teaching Lin, Hanson, and Ramanathan as whole discloses limitations of claim 9.
Hanson further discloses wherein the condition is based on at least one of surrounding circumstances of the person determined based on the image or a place where the image is captured, (see at least: Par. 0051, Passive sensors 410 may be employed to measure activity or inactivity within a monitored residence. The activity or inactivity can be associated with a fall (e.g., impact, period of inactivity, location, time, etc.); and from Par. 0069, fall sensitivity could be set by adjusting the interval of sensed inactivity or the threshold for decreased activity, [i.e., the condition, “inactivity” is based on at least a place where the image is captured, “location where the image of fall is captured”]).
Regarding claim 28, claim 28 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 23. As such, claim 28 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 29, claim 29 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 24. As such, claim 29 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 30, claim 30 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 25. As such, claim 30 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 31, claim 31 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 26. As such, claim 31 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 32, claim 32 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 27. As such, claim 32 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 33, claim 33 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 23. As such, claim 33 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 34, claim 34 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 24. As such, claim 34 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 35, claim 35 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 25. As such, claim 35 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 36, claim 36 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 26. As such, claim 36 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 37, claim 37 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 27. As such, claim 37 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMARA ABDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0273. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. 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.
/AMARA ABDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668 08/19/2026
Prosecution Insights