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 .
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, 3, 10, 11, 14, 16, and dependent claims thereof 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.
Re. Claims 1, 10, and 14: Independent claims 1, 10, and 14 recite, mutatis mutandis, “standardizing the time-series data of the heartbeat interval.” The claims do not define what is entailed by the term “standardize,” nor do they provide detail as to how such a process is carried out. Applicant’s Specification is similarly absent description of how a standardization process occurs or what data is standardized relative to. Examiner requests clarification if Applicant intends to mean determination of a standard deviation of claimed data.
Re. Claims 3 and 16: Claims 3 and 16 recite, mutatis mutandis, “integrating, by the predetermined range having zero as the center.” It is unclear what is meant by “integrating” by a predetermined range. Examiner requests clarification if Applicant intends to mean integration over the predetermined range.
Re. Claim 11: Claim 11 recites that a “heartbeat detector is a driver camera which photographs a body surface of the driver.” However, a generically recited driver camera is not understood to possess the capability to detect heartbeats without further processing components. Applicant’s Paragraph 0039 recites “the heartbeat interval estimation unit 101 detects a pulse wave from a video of the body surface of the driver, the video being photographed by the driver camera 20.” Thus, Applicant’s disclosure appears to identify that it is not the camera which performs the processing needed to identify a heartbeat, but rather an estimation unit which analyzes data therefrom.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Re. Claim 17: As best understood, each limitation of claim 17 is broader than that of independent claim 14; thus, citations of claim 14 teach each limitation of claim 17.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Each claim has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of the claims recites steps or instructions for ascertaining and processing data to assess quality of sleep of subject, which is grouped as a mental process. Accordingly, each of the claims recites an abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 recites a method comprising:
(a) detecting heartbeats of the driver by a heartbeat detection device (data-gathering, additional element);
(b) estimating a heartbeat interval of the driver by a processor based on the heartbeats detected by the heartbeat detection device (evaluation, additional element);
(c) acquiring time-series data of the heartbeat interval of the driver in a predetermined time period by the processor (-evaluation);
(d) standardizing the time-series data of the heartbeat interval by the processor (evaluation);
(e) calculating, by the processor, a probability that the standardized heartbeat interval falls within a predetermined range having zero as a center in the time-series data of the standardized heartbeat interval (evaluation and/or mathematical concept);
(f) determining, by the processor, whether the probability is greater than a predetermined abnormality sign threshold value (evaluation and/or mathematical concept); and
(g) determining, by the processor, that the sign of the abnormality of the driver is detected in response to the probability being greater than the predetermined abnormality sign threshold value (evaluation and/or mathematical concept).
As indicated above, independent claim 1 recites at least one step or instruction grouped as a mental process. Therefore, each of the independent claims recites an abstract idea. Each limitation, aside from language reciting a generic computer components (i.e., “a processor”), can be grouped as a mental process (see italicized portions above), and is addressed as follows:
Each limitation identified via italics recites no more than an evaluation step performed on data gathered from a generically-recited heartbeat detection device.
No limitations are provided that would force the complexity of any of the identified evaluation steps to be non-performable by pen-and-paper practice.
Alternatively or additionally, these steps describe the concept of using implicit mathematical formula(s) (i.e., evaluation of probabilities, implicit statistical techniques, and comparison to thresholds, etc.) to derive a conclusion based on input of medical data, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Diamond v. Diehr. 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981), Parker v. Flook. 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978), and In re Grams. 888 F.2d 835, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1824 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The concept of the recited steps above is not meaningfully different than those mathematical concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas.
Independent claim 10 recites an abnormality sign detection device having limitations which substantively differ from independent claim 1 as follows:
a heartbeat detector that detects heartbeats of the driver (data-gathering, additional element);
a memory which stores a program (additional element); and
a processor which executes the program (additional element)…
Thus, independent claim 1 requires no more than additional generic computer components in communication with a heartbeat detector to be considered a device as a whole. The remaining limitations of claim 10 are mutatis mutandis identical to those of claim 1, but recited instead as steps carried out via generic computer components (i.e., memory, program, and a processor).
Independent claim 14 recites a “driver abnormality sign circuit” being configured to carry out steps mutatis mutandis identical to that of claim 1; however, a “driver abnormality sign circuit,” without further limiting detail is encompassed by circuitry of a generic computer programmed to carry out the steps of the claim.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (e.g., particular steps which are entirely embodied in the mental process) or limitations relating to the data gathered or components therefor and amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Thus, these concepts are similar to court decisions of abstract ideas of itself: collecting, displaying, and manipulating data (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Financial), collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), collection, storage, and recognition of data (Smart Systems Innovations).
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claim 1 recites the following additional elements:
a heartbeat detection device;
a processor
Such additional elements are generically recited elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. The claim recites merely acquiring data from a generically recited heartbeat detection device (Examiner notes that heartbeat detection may be carried out through a wide variety of devices), having no operative connection to the processor aside from communication of obtained data, which amounts to insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering which does not constitute an integration into a practical application. Although the sensors may imply particular structure, their use in the mental process is merely extra-solution. See MPEP 2106.05(b).III:
“Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted)”
The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processors and memory performing a generic computer function of performing calculations and storing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Thus, such additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a processor as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
Independent claim 10 recites: a device comprising additional elements of a heartbeat detector, a memory which stores a program, and a processor which executes the program and a heartbeat detector. A device comprising generic computer components (i.e., memory, program, and a processor) in communication with a generically-claimed heartbeat detector reads on claim 10; thus, claim 10 (similarly to claim 1) encompasses a generic computer in communication with a generically-claimed sensor having no operative connection to the generic computer components aside from communication of gathered data.
Independent claim 14 recites a circuit configured to carry out steps mutatis mutandis those of claim 1. As discussed in Step 2A, Prong 1, such a circuit is encompassed by circuitry inherent in a generic computer programmed to carry out the steps of the claim.
Dependent claims 11, 12, and 18 require or further specify the additional element of a camera. However, a camera is still claimed as performing no more than extra-solution data-gathering activity.
The remaining dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea or processes related to data-gathering or extra-solution data output. Claims 12 and 18 recite a further evaluation step involving determining a posture from data gathered from a camera. Claims 7-9, 13, and 19 recite outputting “a control signal to control operation of a vehicle;” however, the scope of such a limitation encompasses merely outputting a decision based on the result of abstract idea processing steps (which amounts to extra-solution activity) in order to achieve an intended use (i.e., “control operation of a vehicle”). Examiner notes that the system is not claimed as explicitly controlling a device or system component outside of a generic computer.
Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract ideas identified above in the independent claims (and their respective dependent claims) are not integrated into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims are each directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
None of the claims include additional elements that, when viewed as a whole, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons:
Each of independent claims 1, 10, and 14 recite:
a heartbeat detector
generic computer components (Claim 1: a processor; Claim 10: a device comprising “a memory which stores a program; and a processor which executes the program;” Claim 14: a circuit which executes processor-implemented steps of claim 1).
The most detail regarding the particular structure and operation of a heartbeat sensor is found in Applicant’s Paragraph 0039, which describes a driver camera as the heartbeat detector. Paragraph 0039 recites: “the heartbeat interval estimation unit 101 detects a pulse wave from a video of the body surface of the driver, the video being photographed by the driver camera 20.” Thus, Examiner first notes that it is not the camera itself which performs the processing needed to identify a heartbeat, but rather an estimation unit amounting to a computing component of the driver estimation device 10. Thus, the additional element of a heartbeat detector is provided with a two-part structural description of “one or plural CPUs which execute various processes and one or plural memories 10b” (Paragraph 0029) in combination with what is described as a generic camera. However, no special programming or algorithms is indicated for how the camera operates. Additionally, aside from reciting that the “estimation unit 101 detects a pulse wave from a video of the body surface of the driver,” no further detail is provided as to how this detection process is carried out. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) since such hardware perform non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the imaging arts. Thus, Applicant's specification essentially admits that the identified hardware and functions carried out are conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the medical technology industry or medical technology arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional element because it describes such an additional element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
Additionally, detection of heart rate from video data obtained by a camera is considered known by:
Fraz et al. (US 20190034713 A1) – “Monitoring of vital signs offers the possibility of mitigating some of these problems, but traditional contact-based vital signs sensors are restrictive and inconvenient, and some subjects may not co-operate with their use. Recent developments demonstrating that vital signs such as heart rate or breathing rate can be detected in video images of the human body, where the video images are obtained using a standard video camera, are of significant interest. For example Verkruysse et al., “Remote plethysmographic imaging using ambient light”, Optics Express, 16 (26), 22 Dec. 2008, PP. 21434-21445 demonstrated that photoplethysmographic signals could be detected in the video signal from a conventional consumer standard video camera where a human subject was illuminated under ambient light. This idea has been developed further in, for example, WO-A2-2013/027027, WO-A-2011/021128 and WO-A1-2015/049150 which aim to increase the reliability of the detection of the remote PPG signal.”
Analysis of Applicant’s identified generic computer components is considered generic/conventional. As per Applicant’s specification, the processor appears to be generically described such that it appears to be directed to no more than a general purpose computer (Paragraph 0029: “… such as one or plural CPUs which execute various processes and one or plural memories 10b (such as a ROM, a RAM, a hard disk, and the like, e.g., a non-transitory storage device) which store a program to be executed by the processor 10a and various kinds of data necessary for execution of the program”).
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms interpretable as a processor are reasonably construed as a generic computing device.
Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear from the claims themselves and the specification that these limitations require no improved computer resources and merely utilize already available computers with their already available basic functions to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Dependent claims 11, 12 and 18 further specify or require a camera as an additional element. Such a further narrowed limitation has been discussed above – see analysis in light of Berkheimer memo and Fraz.
Each other dependent claim merely recites steps which further define the abstract idea and data/data-processing steps. Examiner notes that the dependent claims recite limitations which are extra-solution or part of the abstract idea itself do not constitute significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a):
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in the claims amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
For at least the above reasons, the claims are directed to applying an abstract idea on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. In other words, none of the claims provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in the independent claims do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (processing of sensor data). That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, 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. Thus, the claims merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field.
Therefore, none of the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.
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 1, 6-9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Katsuhara et al. (US 20180365961 A1) (hereinafter – Katsuhara) in view of
Mitsukura et al. (US 20210137452 A1) (hereinafter – Mitsukura).
Re. Claims 1, 10, and 14: Katsuhara teaches a driver abnormality sign detection method for detecting a sign of an abnormality of a driver who drives a vehicle (Abstract: determination of drowsiness, e.g., of a driver as described in Paragraph 0020),
the driver abnormality sign detection method comprising:
(a) detecting heartbeats of the driver by a heartbeat detection device (Fig. 3: steps 304-310, determination of baseline heartbeat information, measurement of heart rate, variability/interval and/or other additional heartbeat features);
(b) estimating a heartbeat interval of the driver by a processor based on the heartbeats detected by the heartbeat detection device (Fig. 3: calculate heart rate variability and/or interval at step 308);
(c) acquiring time-series data of the heartbeat interval of the driver in a predetermined time period by the processor (Paragraphs 0024-0027: determination of heartbeat information over a period of time);
(d) standardizing the time-series data of the heartbeat interval by the processor (Paragraph 0039: detection of standard deviation).
Katsuhara does not teach the invention further comprising:
(e) calculating, by the processor, a probability that the standardized heartbeat interval falls within a predetermined range having zero as a center in the time-series data of the standardized heartbeat interval;
(f) determining, by the processor, whether the probability is greater than a predetermined abnormality sign threshold value; and
(g) determining, by the processor, that the sign of the abnormality of the driver is detected in response to the probability being greater than the predetermined abnormality sign threshold value.
Mitsukura teaches analogous art in the technology of analysis of heartbeat intervals, particularly for sleep detection (Abstract). Mitsukura further teaches the invention comprising:
(e) calculating, by the processor, a probability that the standardized heartbeat interval falls within a predetermined range having zero as a center in the time-series data of the standardized heartbeat interval (Examiner notes that since the process of standardizing is unclear, further limitations defining the standardized heartbeat interval (e.g., “having zero as a center”) are not considered; Abstract: identification of standard deviation of heartbeat interval (RRI); Paragraphs 0011, 0045: determination of sleep stage probability based on RRI and ranges identified by equations (1)-(5));
(f) determining, by the processor, whether the probability is greater than a predetermined abnormality sign threshold value (Paragraph 0045: determination of sleep stage including wakefulness (see Figs. 12-15) depends on implicit thresholds separating the determined classes); and
(g) determining, by the processor, that the sign of the abnormality of the driver is detected in response to the probability being greater than the predetermined abnormality sign threshold value (see previous citation – probability of being classified in various sleep stages including wakefulness depends on implicit thresholds between classes).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Katsuhara to include determination of wakefulness utilizing probabilities of certain classes based on RRI as taught by Mitsukura, the motivation being that, since Katsuhara is concerned with detecting drowsiness, including the analysis of Mitsukura provides another method of accurately classifying whether an individual is awake or asleep (see Fig. 20: high percentile recognition rates).
With respect to claim 10, see the system of Katsuhara’s Fig. 1 which includes memory, processor, and camera (i.e., a detector). Further citations of Katsuhara as modified by Mitsukura teaches each limitation required by claim 10.
With respect to claim 14, see the system of Katsuhara’s Fig. 1 which includes implicit circuitry for carrying out processor implemented steps. Further citations of Katsuhara as modified by Mitsukura teaches each limitation required by claim 14.
Re. Claim 6: Katsuhara as modified by Mitsukura teaches the invention according to claim 1. Katsuhara further teaches the invention further comprising executing (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) in response to (b) being executed (Examiner notes that step (b) is “estimating a heartbeat interval of the driver by a processor based on the heartbeats,” which is necessarily performed prior to step (c) which recite forming a time series of such data, as well as steps (d)-(g) which each depend on heartbeat interval estimation in step (b) in order to be carried out).
Re. Claims 7, 13, 19: Katsuhara as modified by Mitsukura teaches the invention according to claim 1. Katsuhara further teaches the invention further comprising (h) in response to the sign of the abnormality of the driver is detected, outputting a control signal to control operation of the vehicle (Fig. 3: activate indicator to notify user of potential drowsiness at step 316).
The citation of the rejection of claim 7 teaches each requirement of claims 13 and 19.
Re. Claim 8: Katsuhara as modified by Mitsukura teaches the invention according to claim 7. Katsuhara further teaches the invention further comprising (i) in response to the sign of the abnormality of the driver is detected, outputting a warning signal to the driver of the vehicle (Fig. 3: activate indicator to notify user of potential drowsiness at step 316).
Re. Claim 9: Katsuhara as modified by Mitsukura teaches the invention according to claim 7. Katsuhara further teaches the invention further comprising (i) in response to the sign of the abnormality of the driver is detected, outputting an audible warning signal to be output by the vehicle (Paragraph 0018: “For example, the drowsiness detection system may have a visual indicator when a driver is slightly drowsy but output an audio indicator to wake the driver up when the driver is drowsier or does not respond to the visual indicator”).
Re. Claim 11: Katsuhara as modified by Mitsukura teaches the invention according to claim 1. Katsuhara further teaches the invention wherein the heartbeat detector is a driver camera which photographs a body surface of the driver (Fig. 1: camera 112).
Re. Claim 17: Katsuhara as modified by Mitsukura teaches the invention according to claim 14. As best understood, each limitation of claim 17 is broader than that of independent claim 14; thus, citations of claim 14 teach each limitation of claim 17.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Katsuhara et al. (US 20180365961 A1) (hereinafter – Katsuhara) in view of
Mitsukura et al. (US 20210137452 A1) (hereinafter – Mitsukura) in further view of
Stiller et al. (US 20200317211 A1) (hereinafter – Stiller).
Re. Claims 12 and 18: Katsuhara as modified by Mitsukura teaches the invention according to claims 10 and 14, but do not teach the invention wherein the processor is further configured to estimate a head posture of the driver from a driver camera.
Stiller teaches analogous art in the technology of detecting drowsiness of a driver (Abstract). Stiller further teaches the invention wherein the processor is further configured to estimate a head posture of the driver from a driver camera (Paragraph 0037: “According to an example embodiment, at least two, in any combination, of the methods of a drowsiness-detection device specified below are included by control unit 100: [0038] a drowsiness assessment based on a steering behavior of the driver, e.g., using an evaluation of steering-wheel angles; [0039] a drowsiness assessment based on camera images, e.g., using an evaluation of facial features or facial characteristics such as an opening state of an eyelid and/or a head posture and/or a viewing direction of the driver…”).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Katsuhara as modified by Mitsukura to include an additional method of detecting drowsiness, such as detection of head posture based on camera image data, the motivation being that doing so provides further accuracy and validation of identifying a driver’s awake or sleep state (Paragraph 0037).
Examiner’s Note
Claims 2-5, 15, and 16 do not possess prior art rejections.
Claim 2 (and similarly, claim 15) recites:
“… in a central region of the predetermined range, a peak of appearance probability distribution of a standardized heartbeat interval acquired from a subject group of subjects having abnormalities in automatic nervous systems protrudes higher than a peak of appearance probability distribution of a standardized heartbeat interval acquired from a subject group of subjects with normal automatic nervous systems.”
Such a limitation, notwithstanding issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), is not taught or suggested in the current prior art of record.
Claims 3-5 and 16 do not possess prior art rejections due to their dependency on, respectively, claims 2 and 16.
Examiner notes that each claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 101.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN XU whose telephone number is (571)272-6617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JUSTIN XU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791