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 04/27/2026. In the applicants’ response, claims 1, 7, and 13 were amended; claims 6, 12, and 18 were cancelled; claim 19 was newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, and 19 are pending and being examined. Claims 1, 7, and 18 are independent form.
3. The rejections of the claims under 35 USC 101 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
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.
6. Claim 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gupta et al (“ACCURATE HEART-RATE ESTIMATION FROM FACE VIDEOS USING QUALITY-BASED FUSION”, 2017, hereinafter “Gupta”).
Regarding claim 1, Gupta discloses an information processing system (the method and the system for estimating heart rate (HR)) from facial video using quality-based fusion; see the title and the abstract) comprising: at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor (these hardware related features are inherent in the system of Gupta, e.g., see Sec. 3, para.1) configured to execute the instructions to; acquire coding parameters at a plurality of timings of a video image of a subject distributed via a network (see Sec. 2.3, para.1: the system may “divide the face video into several temporal fragments and extract HR from each fragment which is referred as local HR.”; wherein each fragment has a corresponding local PPG signal, e.g., the jth fragment has the local PPG signal Sj which is transformed into the frequency domain by applying FFT and the frequency corresponding to the maximum magnitude
a
j
belongs to the heart beat frequency fj; wherein “the local HR for the j-th fragment, hj is given by hj = fj × 60 where fj is the heart beat frequency in the j-th fragment. See Sce.2.3, 3. Local HR and quality. In other words, for the jth fragment, the system may obtain the maximum magnitude
a
j
indicating the heart beat frequency fj.); and
estimate reliability of results of analyzing information on the subject based on coding parameters of an area of a specific part of the subject at the plurality of timings (See Sce.2.3, 3. Local HR and quality, lines 11-19: “Higher amplitude of other frequency components indicates higher noise contents and subsequently less confidence in the estimated local HR. This observation is used to define a quality parameter which indicates the confidence in predicting local HR. Quality qj for local PPG signal, Sj is given by” Eq(7).);
wherein the coding parameters at the plurality of timings include at least one of a bit rate of coding, a frame rate of coding, a quantization parameter of coding, or an area of each layer and a bit rate of hierarchical coding (a quantization parameter of coding, for example, quality qj, is defined by Eq(7) for the j-th fragment, where aj and bj denote the maximum and the second maximum amplitude of the frequency spectrum of Sj; see Eq(7) and Sec. 2.3, 3).
Regarding claim 2, 8, 14, Gupta discloses, wherein at least one processor is configured to estimate the reliability in a period including the plurality of timings based on the coding parameters at the plurality of timings (ibid., i.e., see Eq(7)), and the at least one processor is configured to calculate information on the subject based on the estimated reliability and the video image of the area of the specific part in the period (ibid., i.e., wherein quality qj indicates the confidence in predicting local HR.).
Regarding claim 3, 9, 15, Gupta discloses, wherein the at least one processor is configured to estimate the reliability in the period based on a first coding parameter at a first timing included in the period and a second coding parameter at a second timing included in the period (calculates the quality parameter qj for each of the temporal fragments, i.e., qj, j=1,...p; see Sec. 2.4, Eq(8)).
Regarding claim 4, 10, 16, Gupta discloses, wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine the reliability in the period to become smaller as an amount of change between the first coding parameter and the second coding parameter becomes larger (see Eq(7); wherein the reliability qj becomes smaller as the noise bj becomes larger. In other words, when the amplitude of other frequency components for the j+1th fragment becomes larger than the amplitude of other frequency components for the jth fragment, i.e., bj+1> bj, then the quality in the j+1th fragment is worse than the quality in the jth fragment).
Regarding claim 5, 11, 17, Gupta discloses, wherein the at least one processor is configured to apply a weight in accordance with the reliability in the period on each of the values of the results of analyzing information on the subject based on the video image in the period, and estimates information on the subject based on a total value of the weighted values (see Eq(8) and Sec. 2.4: “Local HR estimates are consolidated using quality based fusion for global HR estimating, i.e., each local HR estimate is weighted by its quality which indicates the confidence in accurate extraction of local HR from its local PPG.”).
Regarding claim 7, 13, each of them is an inherent variation of claim 1, thus it is interpreted and rejected for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, Gupta discloses the information processing system of claim 1, wherein the video image is encoded according to the coding parameters at the plurality of timings (see Eq(8) and Sec. 2.4; wherein the global heart rate HG is determined according to the coding parameters generated from each of the p temporal fragments, i.e., j=1,...,p).
Response to Arguments
7. Applicant’s arguments, with respects to claim, filed on ***, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of applicant’s response, applicant argues:
These coding parameters are distinct from the amplitude of an FFT described in Gupta, because the amplitude of an FFT is not used for encoding the video image. Therefore, the amplitude of an FFT is not used for encoding the video image is not a coding parameter, and does not correspond to any of the coding parameters listed in the Markush group. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the above anticipation rejection.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments. As explained in the rejections of the claims, the system and the method in Gupta is directed to heart rate (HR) estimation by coding local parameters hj and gj; wherein hj and gj indicate two parameters: heart rate and quality extracted from the local, i.e., the j-th fragment PPG signal of the face video of a subject. As such, each of fj/hj and qj including aj and bj, is a codding parameter generated from a face video of a subject. Therefore, Gupta discloses the argued feature.
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