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. Claims 1-18 filed and preliminary amended on 01/17/2024 are pending and being examined. Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent form.
Priority
3. This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/036285 filed on 09/30/2021
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed inventions are directed to non-statutory subject matter (an abstract idea without significantly more).
5-1. Regarding independent claim 1, the claim recites an information processing system comprising: at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to;
[1] acquire coding parameters at a plurality of timings of a video image distributed via a network; and
[2] estimate reliability of results of analyzing information on a subject based on coding parameters of an area of a specific part of the subject at the plurality of timings.
Step 1:
With regard to step (1), claim 1, is directed to an information processing system comprising at least one memory storing instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions. The claim 1 therefore is one of statutory categories of invention, i.e., a machine and/or manufacture.
Step 2A-1:
With regard to 2A-1, The elements recited in claim 1, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a process(es) which is/are directed to organizing human activity, can be practically performed in human mind, or falls within mathematical concepts. For example, “acquire coding parameters at a plurality of timings of a video image distributed via a network” in step [1] in the context of this claim, encompasses mental processes that “can be performed in human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, therefore the limitation falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Similarly, “estimate reliability of results of analyzing information on a subject based on coding parameters of an area of a specific part of the subject at the plurality of timings” in step [2] in the context of this claim, encompasses mental observation, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions that “can be performed in human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”, therefore the limitation falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Claim 1 therefore recites an abstract idea. If a claim limitation is directed to organizing human activity, can be practically performed in human mind, or falls within mathematical concepts, then the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A-2:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase "integration into a practical application" to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements of “at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions” are recited at high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic processors and memories. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
As explained above, the information processing system comprising at least one memory storing instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. The claim therefore is ineligible.
5-2. Regarding dependent claims 2-6, they are viewed individually, these additional elements are under its broadest reasonable interpretation, either covers performance of the limitation in the mind, performing a mathematical algorithm or extra solution activity for data gathering and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. And, when the claims are viewed as a whole, they do not improve a technology by allowing the technology to perform a function that it previously was not capable of performing; and they do not provide any limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a broad technological environment (i.e., computer-based analysis of generic data). Hence, the claimed invention does not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea, so the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
5-3. Regarding independent claims 7 and 13, the claims recite a method (claim 7) and an apparatus comprising at least one memory storing instructions and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (claim 13) and each of which is analogous to apparatus claim 1. Therefore, grounds of rejection analogous to those applied to claim 1 are applicable to claims 7 and 13. Regarding step 2A-2, the claim(s) does/do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim(s) does/do not recite any additional elements that impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) therefore recites/recite an abstract idea.
Because the claim(s) fails/fail under (2A), the claim(s) needs/need to be further evaluated under (2B). The claim(s) herein does/do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
5-4. Regarding dependent claims 8-12, and 14-18 they are dependent from independent claims 7 and 13, respectfully, and viewed individually, these additional elements are under its broadest reasonable interpretation, either covers performance of the limitation in the mind, performing a mathematical algorithm or extra solution activity for data gathering and do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. And, when the claims are viewed as a whole, they do not improve a technology by allowing the technology to perform a function that it previously was not capable of performing; and they do not provide any limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a broad technological environment (i.e., computer-based analysis of generic data). Hence, the claimed invention does not constitute significantly more than the abstract idea, so the claims are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Claim 1-18 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 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. 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 a 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).).
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 6, 12, 18, Gupta discloses, wherein 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 (“the method and the system for estimating heart rate (HR)) from facial video using quality-based fusion”; see the title and the abstract).
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.
Conclusion
9. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210209388.
10. 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.
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, 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