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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed on January 18, 2024, as directed by the amendment, claims 1-11 have been amended, as per Applicant’s comment in the remarks, “to confirm to U.S. practice”.
Claim Objections
Claim “11” is objected to because of the following informalities: the amendment to strikethrough claim number “11” appears to be a typo in view of Applicant’s remarks noted above, it is presumed that this strikethrough this was not Applicant’s intent. Examiner notes that in future, a notice of non-compliance will be issued, in leu to an Office action to correct similar informalities.
Claims 1, 4 and 11 are objected to because of the following grammatical errors:
Claims 1 and 11, the phrases “with a view to detecting” should be amended to “with a view to detect”; and “with a view to increasing” should be amended to “ with a view to increase”.
Claims 1 and 11, the second instance of “at least two sensors” should be preceded with “the” for proper antecedence basis.
Claim 4, the phrase “the two sensors comprising” should be amended to “the two sensors comprise.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "a device for measuring movements of the body ..." in claim 7 - see [0077] of specification as filed “a camera, … for acquiring a datum representative of a movement of the person”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 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.
Regarding claims 1 and 11:
(a) the phrase "such as" in each claim renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d); and
(b) each of claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation "the robustness". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim does not previously set forth robustness.
Claims 2-10 are likewise rejected, only because they include all limitations and deficiencies of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation "a person". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as claim 1 previously sets forth “a person”.
Regarding claim 5, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 6-8, the limitation "the level of reliability" in claim 6, "the reliability of the measurement" in claim 7, and "the reliability conditions" in claim 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each limitation in the claim as claim 1 previously sets forth “a reliability”.
Claim 6, recites in part the limitation "the two sensors" . There is insufficient antecedent basis for each limitation in the claim as claim 1 previously sets forth “at least two sensors” it is unclear if this recitation refers to the at least two sensors or other unspecified two sensors.
Claim 9, recites in part the limitation "retained on the basis of their quality and reliability". There is insufficient antecedent basis for each limitation in the claim as claim 1 does not previously set forth retained data.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahadi et al. US 20210366606 A1 ("Shahadi") in view of Steinberg et al. US 20220079464 A1 ("Steinberg") and in view of Narayanan et al. US 20210327585 A1 ("Narayanan").
Regarding claim 1 and claim 11, Shahadi discloses a system and associated method for providing assistance with delivery of diagnostic information, with a view to detecting a contagious disease in a person ([abstract], Figs. 1-4 and e.g. [0019-0020], [0023], [0188-0190]), the detecting system comprising:
a device for acquiring examination data on the person, wherein the acquiring device comprises at least two sensors for measuring the same physiological measurement such as a radar and a thermal camera for acquiring the examination data, wherein the sensors are arranged to operate without contact with the person; (see illustration Figs. 1-4 and e.g. [0021], [0032], [0049], [0126-0127] - examiner note: for examination purposes claim is narrowly interpreted to require a radar and a thermal camera - see 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection above, it is however noted, that the broad interpretation of the claim that does not require a radar or thermal camera and could very well read on a system that has at least two sensors of the same type)
a data processing device arranged to receive the data obtained by the sensors of the acquiring device (see illustration Figs. 1-4 “computer” and e.g., [0055], [0081-0083]) wherein the processing device furthermore is arranged to fuse data from at least two sensors of the acquiring device with a view to increasing the robustness of the examination datum acquired on the person (e.g. [0087], [0159], [0232], synchronization of sensor data is a form of joining or blending data from the sensors to form a single entity (i.e. fuse) to increase reliability and accuracy of measurement (i.e. robustness))
a display device arranged to display diagnostic information regarding the disease based on an analysis of the data by the data processing device (e.g. [0065], [0185]), wherein the diagnostic information is representative of a level of probability that the person is suffering from the disease, wherein the level of probability in particular potentially (e.g. [0020] “… to monitor peoples' vital signs e.g. to identify persons infected with Covid-19”,[0.159], [0184] “Covid-19 diagnoses which may be binary (ill/healthy) or may quantify probability of infection, given the data collected from certain subjects” [0222] .
While Shahadi discloses synchronization of sensor data and the a level of probability that the person is suffering from the contagious disease, Shahadi does not explicitly disclose that the data-processing data device is arranged to fuse the data, and the probability is a score.
In regards to the processing , Steinberg in the same field of endeavor of diagnosis using at least two sensors that measure the same physiological measurement, in at least [0113] “… the system may further comprise additional sensors communicating with the processing means, therefore generating sensor fusion by integrating sensory data or data derived from disparate sources such that resulting in a more accurate and complete information and further increasing confidence level or the processing unit for data interpretation and decision making. The sensor fusion may be a direct fusion, indirect fusion or a combination of the output of the direct and indirect. The sensory data may be derived from a variety of sensor types, a camera or any thermographic camera (i.e. infrared camera, thermal imaging camera or infrared thermography). In view of the teachings of Steinberg, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to have modified the data-processing device of Shahadi to fuse data from the at least two sensors of the acquiring device, to increase confidence level for data interpretation and decision making as taught by Steinberg.
In regards to the level of probability is a score, Narayanan in the same field of endeavor of diagnosis of a contagious disease discloses using a data-processing device ([abstract]) discloses in [0074] “ … a machine learning model that may produce a disease or illness score as an output, wherein, the disease score may represent a probability or likelihood that a given model input may be associated with a given classification or category of illness or disease … a score between any suitable range, such as 0 and 1, wherein, proximity of the score to lower end of the range may represent a higher probability …” In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to have modified the diagnostic information displayed to include a score for the level of probability, so as to quantify probability of infection as required by Shahadi in [0222] and to readily display a quantitative value in regards to the level of probability of illness or disease of the contagious disease to the user.
Regarding claim 2, Shahadi discloses wherein the system is deployed in a vehicle, in this case, the sensors can be described as being positioned in the same housing (vehicle defining a housing).
Regarding claims 3-4, see discussion in claim 1, Shahadi Figs. 1-4 and e.g. [0021], [0032], [0049], [0126-0127], regarding a radar and thermal image camera, which would pick up signals of different types.
Regarding claims 6-10, [as to claims 6-7], see discussion in claim 1 and further in Shahadi [0149], “An additional wide-angle (typically visible light) camera may be used to determine the movement type (if any) of a subject, in order to improve the measurement process quality … The radar may use this timestamp to locate and remove timestamped portions within the measured data, thereby to retain, for analysis, only received data that is related to respiration and heartbeat” - the additional camera is an equivalent thereof device for measuring movement of the body of the person in [0077] of the instant specification as filed, that is used to check for reliability of the at least two sensors;
[as to claim 8 and 9], the processing device of Shahadi comprise a memory that is arranged to retain one or measurements (e.g., [0055] , [0077]) that would retain/store the data processed as discussed in [0149], and would construct diagnostic information based on the retained measurement/sensor data; and
[as to claim 10], see Shahadi [0159] regarding “… an artificial intelligence implemented with the system…”, and as modified by Steinberg in claim 1 above, the artificial intelligence will be arranged to carry out the data fusion.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shahadi in view of Steinberg and Narayanan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ganesan et al., WO 2020205853 A1 ("Ganesan").
Regarding claim 5, modified Shahadi as discussed in claim 1, the sensor data in Shahadi is characterized with one or more measurements windows (see e.g. [0149] “… timestamped portions within the measured data…”), Shahadi teaches use of more than one sensor, to improve reliability and accurate monitoring in the even one sensor has an obscured line of sight [0188], however, Shahadi does not explicitly disclose assigning a level of reliability for the at least one sensor, and that data fusion involves the level of reliability and the window.
However, Ganesan in the same problem solving area of multi-sensor data fusion ([0134-0138]) teaches assigning a level of reliability for the at least one sensor ([0135] “… fusion stage 96 includes determining an estimate of the quality of the measurements from each sensor 14, 16. In an example, this is done by first defining a signal quality index 98 that seeks to identify which sensors provide the most relevant information so that more weight can be assigned to the output from these sensors”. In view of these teachings, since Shahadi requires at least one of each type of sensor ([0019]]), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to have assigned a reliability score associated with each sensor, and perform data fusion based on sensors with the best reliability score, for more accurate results, by eliminating sensor data from sensors that are not reliable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONIFACE N NGANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 5:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/BONIFACE N NGANGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797