DETAILED ACTION
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.
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: “region of interest specifying unit configured to”, “pixel value calculation unit configured to”, “pixel value combining unit configured to” and “pulse wave calculation unit configured to” in claim 1; and “displacement calculation unit configured” in claim 1.
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 § 101
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claim 1, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-20 are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The Examiner will analyze Claim 1, and similar rationale applies to independent Claims 12 and 13.
The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below. The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a machine since the claim is directed to information processing device.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since Claim 1 limitation of “a region of interest specifying unit configured to specify a location of a region of interest regarding an image of each frame of a moving image captured of a living organism” [mental process]; “a pixel value calculation unit configured to calculate, in an image of a first frame of the moving image, a plurality of first representative values of pixel values of pixels in locations of a plurality of regions of interest specified regarding images of a plurality of second frames including the image of the first frame” [mathematical concept]; “a pixel value combining unit configured to calculate a second representative value regarding the first frame by combining the plurality of first representative values” [mathematical concept]; and “a pulse wave calculation unit configured to calculate a pulse wave signal from a temporal change in the second representative value” [mathematical concept] directed to an abstract.
If/when the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner interprets that the Claims do not amount to significantly more since the claim state the information processing device processes images information without improving the function of the device.
Furthermore, the generic computer components or machine learning algorithm of the processor/memory recited as performing generic computer or machine learning functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The Examiner finds that Claims 2-11 and 14-20 does not state significantly more since the claim only recites additional steps for processing image signals.
Thus, claims 1-20 recite the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims, 1, 2, 4-8, 12, 13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being anticipated by Marks et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0224983).
Regarding claims 1 and 12 Marks teaches an information processing device comprising: a region of interest specifying unit configured to specify a location of a region of interest (skin regions) regarding an image of each frame (each video frame) of a moving image (video) captured of a living organism (person) [Para. 24 “a set of iPPG signals measured from a video of the person are obtained by averaging pixel intensity over all pixels in each of a set of skin regions of the person at each time step (e.g., each video frame)” and “To obtain the locations of the facial regions, some embodiments first use a face alignment (i.e., facial landmark detection) method to detect a number of facial landmarks, then interpolate and extrapolate the detected landmarks to a number of interpolated locations that are used to subdivide the face into more regions”; Para. 89 “Some embodiments are based on recognition that when the facial landmarks are detected in each video frame independently, there is a high-frequency jitter in positions of the detected landmarks, even when the face is stationary”]; a pixel value calculation unit configured to calculate, in an image of a first frame of the moving image, a plurality of first representative values (IPPG signals) of pixel values (pixel intensity) of pixels in locations of a plurality of regions of interest (skin regions) specified regarding images of a plurality of second frames (Frame T-5 to T=5) including the image of the first frame (Frame T) [Para. 24 “a set of iPPG signals measured from a video of the person are obtained by averaging pixel intensity over all pixels in each of a set of skin regions of the person at each time step (e.g., each video frame)”; Para. 89 “In some embodiments, the position of each facial landmark in frame t is estimated by averaging the detected positions of the landmark from frame t−5 to t+5”. It is clear that the prior art teaches computing the landmark position “in frame T” by averaging positions from a temporal neighborhood frame t-5 to t+5 and those landmarks are used to define/subdivide the face into “facial regions of interest” of frame t]; a pixel value combining unit configured to calculate a second representative value (measured ippg signal) regarding the first frame by combining (median across) the plurality of first representative values (ippg signals) [Para. 25 “A measured iPPG signal for each median region is obtained by computing for each time step a median across the iPPG signals from the mean regions that make up the median region”]; and
a pulse wave calculation unit configured to calculate a pulse wave signal (ippg signal) from a temporal change (time series signal) in the second representative value (measured ippg signal) [Para. 25 “A measured iPPG signal for each median region is obtained by computing for each time step a median across the iPPG signals from the mean regions that make up the median region” and Para. 88 “For each facial region j ∈{1, . . . , N}, the iPPG signal p.sub.j(t) obtained from the average pixel intensities is a one-dimensional time series signal, where t∈{1, . . . , T} is a video frame index within a time window of length T frames”].
Regarding claims 2, Marks teaches an imaging unit (camera 1102) configured to acquire the moving image (video sequence) by capturing images of the living organism (patient 1104) [Para. 127].
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Marks teaches wherein the images of the plurality of second frames represent a plurality of images captured in a prescribed time (time windows of length ten seconds) [para. 88].
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Marks teaches wherein the images of the plurality of second frames represent a plurality of successively captured images (frames t-5 to 5+5) [Para. 89].
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Marks teaches wherein the images of the plurality of second frames represent the image of the first frame and an image of at least one frame captured before the first frame (frame t-5) [Para. 89].
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Marks teaches wherein the images of the plurality of second frames represent the image of the first frame and an image of at least one frame captured after the first frame (t+5) [Para. 89].
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Marks teaches wherein the pixel value
combining unit calculates the second representative value by weighting the plurality of first representative values and combining ((weighted average) the plurality of weighted, first representative values [Para. 95].
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1. Furthermore, Marks teaches a computer-readable recording medium containing a program configured to cause a computer to implement the claim limitation [Para. 135].
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.
Claims 3, 9-11, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0224983) in view of Kirenko et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0195469).
Regarding claims 3, and 14, Mark teaches wherein the second representative value (final ippg signal) is calculated by the pixel value combining unit when the plurality of second frames is selected regarding the first frame [Para. 89 “weighted average”].
However, Mark doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Kirenko teaches representative value (a single value) of pixel values of pixels in a location of a region of interest (sub-set) specified regarding the image of the first frame when the plurality of second frames are not selected regarding the first frame [Para. 71].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mark’s Pixel value combining unit to include Kirenko’s per-frame sub-set/ROI representative value calculation when plural second frames are not selected, so Marks can still output a representative ROI value from the first frame alone. This modification would provide a fallback/single frame signal generation technique to improve Mark’s, by maintaining continues signal generation and reduce signal degradation when multi-frame data is unreliable due to noise.
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Mark doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Kirenko teaches a displacement calculation unit configured to calculate a displacement between a first region of interest specified regarding the image of the first frame/image and a second region of interest specified regarding an image of one of the pluralities of second frames other than the first frame (adjacent image), wherein the pixel value combining unit (fusion process) weights the plurality of first representative values in accordance with the displacement (spatial distance) [Para. 63].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mark to include Kirrnko’s displacement calculation between a first sub-set/ROI and a corresponding sub-set/ROI in another frame to provide that displacement to Mark’s pixel value combining unit. The modified Marks system would weight the representative value according to the calculation displacement, thereby improving motion related corruption during iPPG signal generation.
Regarding claim 10, Mark doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Kirenko teaches wherein the displacement (motor vectors) is calculated based on at least any selected from the group consisting of a difference in location (distance) between the first region of interest and the second region of interest, a difference in area (enlargement or reduction in size) between the first region of interest and the second region of interest, and a rotation angle between the first region of interest and the second region of interest [Para. 27].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mark’s motion/noise processing module to calculate ROI displacement using Kirenko’s location and motion vector matching, size change, and rotation correspondence parameters. This medication would merely apply Kirenko’s known sub-set matching technique to marks’ facial region iPPG processing to improve correspondence tracking between frames.
Regarding claim 11, Mark doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitations.
However, Kirenko teaches wherein the images of the plurality of second frames (set 20) represent a plurality of images captured in a time (time interval) determined in accordance with the displacement (motion) [Para 74].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Mark’s frame and window selection logic to use Kirenko’s variable time interval based on the selected image set and motion and displacement-based correspondence. This modification would allow Marks to dynamically select second frames over an appropriate time interval for more reliable ROI tracking and signal fusion which improves ROI tracking stability and reducing noise in the resulting time varying signals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-7 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, O’Neal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights