DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This is in response to the applicant response filed on 04/23/2026. In the applicant’s response, claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10-12, 15, 17-19 were amended. Accordingly, claims 1-20 are pending and being examined. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent form.
3. The rejections of the claims under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jain et al (“Face Video Based Touchless Blood Pressure and Heart Rate Estimation”, 2016, hereinafter “Jain”).
Regarding claim 1, Jain discloses an information processing system (the system and the method for estimating blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) based on facial videos; see Title) comprising: at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor (these hardware related features are inherent in the system of Jain.) configured to execute the instructions to:
receive a first video image related to a person from an encoder (see the “input video” in fig.2), the encoder configured to change image qualities of video images comprising the first video image (the system receives an input face video from a subject and extracts a good quality face video for HR estimation from the subject; see fig.1 and Sec. II);
specify an encoding parameter related to an image quality of a second video image related to the person (the system determines a time window (i.e., 5s’<tw<10s’) for extracting the good quality face video for HR estimation; see Sec. II-C) and a time period during which a change in the image quality of the second video image is set to be equal to or smaller than a threshold based on information about the first video image (wherein the length of the time window must <=5 seconds, ibid), the encoding parameter including at least one of a bit rate, a frame rate, a quantization parameter (QP) value and a QP map of the second video image (wherein the time window, i.e., 5s’<tw<10s’, is a quantization parameter and a QP map of the good quality face video, ibid); and
control the encoder to distribute the second video image based on the encoding parameter and the specified time period (the system further processes the good quality face frames which locate within the time window for HR estimation; see fig.1. and Sec, II-D).
Regarding claim 2, 9, 16, Jain discloses, wherein the at least one processor is configured to specify a length of the time in accordance with an image quality of the first video image (see fig.1 and Sec. II).
Regarding claim 3, 10, 17, Jain discloses, wherein the at least one processor is configured to specify the length of the time in accordance with an item used to estimate a state of the person (ibid.).
Regarding claim 4, 11, 18, Jain discloses, wherein the at least one processor is configured to specify a coding parameter set to be constant at the time from among a plurality of coding parameters of the second video image in accordance with an item used to estimate a state of the person (wherein the time window 5s’<tw<10s’ are parameters for consistent HR estimation, see fig.1 and Sec. II).
Regarding claim 5, 12, 19, Jain discloses, wherein the at least one processor is configured to specify, at the time, the coding parameter for an area of a specific part of a subject included in the first video used for an analysis to be constant (ibid.).
Regarding claim 6, 13, 20, Jain discloses, wherein the at least one processor is configured to specify at least one of the length of the time and a starting point of the time based on at least one of a measured value and a predicted value of a bandwidth available in a network through which the second video image is distributed (ibid.).
Regarding claim 7, Jain discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the image quality of the second video image includes an image quality based on at least one of a bit rate of coding, a frame rate of the coding, a quantization parameter of the coding, and an area of each layer in hierarchical coding (wherein the time window, i.e., 5s’<tw<10s’, is a quantization parameter and a QP map of the good quality face video, see fig.1 and Sec. II).
Regarding claims 8, 15, each of which is an inherent variation of claim 1, thus it is interpreted and rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments, regarding claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As explained in the rejection of claim 1, the reference in Jain discloses or suggests each and every element recited by claim 1. The examiner therefore maintains rejections.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUIPING LI whose telephone number is (571)270-3376. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am--5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached on (571)272-4637. 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; 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.
/RUIPING LI/Primary Examiner, Ph.D., Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights