Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/389,049

NON-CONTRASTIVE UNSUPERVISED LEARNING OF PHYSIOLOGICAL SIGNALS FROM VIDEO

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Nov 13, 2023
Examiner
CHAN, CAROL WANG
Art Unit
2672
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME DU LAC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 83% — above average
83%
Career Allow Rate
292 granted / 351 resolved
+21.2% vs TC avg
Strong +36% interview lift
Without
With
+36.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
370
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.8%
-29.2% vs TC avg
§103
38.7%
-1.3% vs TC avg
§102
19.9%
-20.1% vs TC avg
§112
24.1%
-15.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 351 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/21/2024 and 06/12/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 4-5 recite “including, the video stream including a sequence of frames” which Examiner suggests amending to “including a sequence of frames” (deleting “, the video stream including”). Line 10 recites “video steam” which Examiner suggests amending to “video stream”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Lines 6-7 recite “including, the video stream including a sequence of frames” which Examiner suggests amending to “including a sequence of frames” (deleting “, the video stream including”). Line 12 recites “video steam” which Examiner suggests amending to “video stream”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 5, 6, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites the limitation "the media stream" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a media stream, only a video stream. Examiner suggests amending to “the video stream” and has interpreted the limitation as such. Claim 6 depends on claim 5 and thus is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the media stream" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a media stream, only a video stream. Examiner suggests amending to “the video stream” and has interpreted the limitation as such. Claim 13 recites the limitation "the media stream" in Lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a media stream, only a video stream. Examiner suggests amending to “the video stream” and has interpreted the limitation as such. Claim 14 depends on claim 13 and thus is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite. 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. Claim(s) 1-6 and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (CN 113397516, see translated version). With regards to claim 9, Chen et al. discloses a system for non-contrastive unsupervised learning of a physiological signal from a video stream, the system comprising: a processor (Para. 0110 lines 1-4, "control terminal" "computer"); and a memory storing one or more programs for execution by the processor, the one or more programs including instructions (Para. 0034 lines 1-2, 0108 lines 1-2, "control terminal" "storage unit") for: capturing the video stream of a subject including, the video stream including a sequence of frames (Para. 0076 lines 1-2, 0082 lines 1-3, "video information" "multiple frames of images"); processing each frame of the video stream to update a physiological signal detection function (Para. 0078 lines 1-2, 0085 lines 1-2, 0086 lines 1-2, 0104 lines 1-3, "each frame" "train" "optimize" "deep learning model"); determining the physiological signal of the subject from the video stream (Para. 0098 lines 1-2, "heart rate estimation"); and applying the updated physiological signal detection function to a subsequent video steam (Para. 0079 line 1, 0080 lines 1-2, 0107 lines 1-2, 0108 lines 1-4, "video information to be detected"). With regards to claim 10, Chen et al. discloses the system according to claim 9, wherein the media stream includes one or more of a visible-light video stream (Para. 0076 lines 1-2, 0082 lines 1-3, "video"), a near-infrared video stream, a longwave-infrared video stream, a thermal video stream, and an audio stream of the subject. With regards to claim 11, Chen et al. discloses the system according to claim 9, the physiological signal includes at least one of pulse rate, blood pressure, or eye blink rate (Para. 0080 lines 1-2, 0098 lines 1-2, "heart rate"). With regards to claim 12, Chen et al. discloses the system according to claim 9, wherein the physiological signal includes at least one of pulse rate or voice frequency (Para. 0080 lines 1-2, 0098 lines 1-2, "heart rate"). With regards to claim 13, Chen et al. discloses the system according to claim 9, further comprising cropping each frame of the media stream to encapsulate a region of interest that includes one or more of a face, cheek, forehead, or an eye (Para. 0087 lines 1-7, 0090 lines 1-2, "facial region"). With regards to claim 14, Chen et al. discloses the system according to claim 13, wherein the region of interest includes two or more body parts (Para. 0087 lines 1-7, 0090 lines 1-2, Fig. 3, "facial region", where the facial region includes at least two body parts on the face). With regards to claims 1-6, they recite the functions of the apparatus of claims 9-14, respectively, as processes. Thus, the analyses in rejecting claims 9-14 are equally applicable to claims 1-6, respectively. 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. Claim(s) 7, 8, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (CN 113397516, see translated version) in view of Fan et al. (CN 106580294, see translated version). With regards to claim 15, Chen et al. discloses the system according to claim 9. Chen et al. does not explicitly teach further comprising: combining at least two of a visible-light video stream, a near-infrared video stream, and a thermal video stream into a fused video stream. However, Fan et al. teaches the concept of combining visible-light, near-infrared, and thermal video streams into a fused video stream in order to more accurately determine physiological signals (Para. 0014 lines 1-5, 0015 lines 1-4, 0016 lines 1-3, 0017 lines 1-3, 0083 lines 1-2, 0085 lines 1-2, "data fusion"). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of combining visible-light, near-infrared, and thermal video streams into a fused video stream as taught by Fan et al. into the system of Chen et al. The motivation for this would be to more accurately determine the physiological signal. With regards to claim 16, the combination of Chen et al. and Fan et al. discloses the system according to claim 15, wherein the visible-light video stream, the near- infrared video stream, and/or the thermal video stream are combined according to a synchronization device (Fan et al.: Para. 0077 lines 1-5, 0078 lines 1-2, 085 lines 1-2, 0089 lines 7-8, "control terminal"). With regards to claims 7 and 8, they recite the functions of the apparatus of claims 15 and 16, respectively, as processes. Thus, the analyses in rejecting claims 15 and 16 are equally applicable to claims 7 and 8, respectively. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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. /CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 13, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 22, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12579803
TOTAGRAPHY FOR SUPERRESOLUTION IMAGING AND SIGNAL PROCESSING OF POSITIVE, REAL-VALUED IMAGES AND SIGNALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12573205
ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND METHOD FOR VEHICLE WHICH ENHANCES DRIVING ENVIRONMENT RELATED FUNCTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573240
LIGHT SOURCE SPECTRUM AND MULTISPECTRAL REFLECTIVITY IMAGE ACQUISITION METHODS AND APPARATUSES, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12573206
BIRD’S-EYE VIEW ADAPTIVE INFERENCE RESOLUTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567237
OBJECT EVALUATION METHOD, OBJECT EVALUATION DEVICE, NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM PRODUCT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+36.2%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 351 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month