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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Rotenstreich et al (WO 2022/153320) in view of Ruttler et al (US 2017/0324437).
As to claims 1, 2 and 5, Rotenstreich teaches a computer apparatus (device in fig.2A, abstract) comprising: an eye tracking camera (20 having eye imaging system 22, page 18, fig.2a); and
at least one processor (processing system 34, page 19, fig.2a) in data communication with the eye tracking camera and a memory (inherently memory in processing system 34, page 8, lines 30-33 and page 9, lines 15-20) storing processor executable code for configuring the at least one processor to:
identify capillaries in an eye from an image stream from the eye tracking camera (determining blood vessels and capillaries in the eye from a stream of imaged, page 12 lines 1-12 and lines 18-31, page 16 line 28 to page 17 line 2, page 24 line 23 to page 25 line 7, page 35 lines 16-20);
continuously characterize a width of the identified capillaries (determining subtle changes in eye capillaries blood vessels morphology, page 12 lines 1-12 and lines 18-31, page 16 line 28 to page 17 line 2, page 24 line 23 to page 25 line 7, page 35 lines 16-20); and
determine a cranial blood flow level a pilot based on the width characterization (determining blood flow in the eye, see page 12 lines 12-14 and lines 27-29, page 17 lines 1-2, 14 and 32, page 24 lines 23-25, page 26 lines 15-23, page 29 lines 31-33, page 30 lines 4-8, page 32 lines 16-18, page 35 lines 16-18).
Still as to claims 1, 2 and 5, Rotenstreich teaches the invention substantially as claimed above wherein determining oxygenated area and abnormal deoxygenated/hypoxia area in the eye inherently from blood flow, end of page 10 to page 11, line 5, page 17, lines 10-15, end of page 18, page 19, and page 30, lines 28-35, but failed to explicitly teach based on a comparison of the cranial blood flow level to a threshold cranial blood flow level, that the pilot is experiencing hypoxia; and in response to determining that the pilot is experiencing hypoxia, automatically instruct an avionics system of an aircraft operated by the pilot to increase a level of automation for the aircraft, instruct the avionics system to assume at least partial control of the aircraft to increase the level of automation; and in response to determining that the pilot is experiencing hypoxia, cause a hypoxia alert to be presented to the pilot; and transmit the hypoxia alert to remote monitoring personnel.
However, Ruttler teaches an analogous blood oxygen saturation monitoring system (abstract, par.61-62 and par.124), wherein based on a comparison of the cranial blood flow level to a threshold cranial blood flow level, that the pilot is experiencing hypoxia (values obtained by the processor can be compared with acceptable values for blood oxygen. Upon determining that the blood oxygen level is low, par.123);
in response to determining that the pilot is experiencing hypoxia, automatically instruct an avionics system of an aircraft operated by the pilot to increase a level of automation for the aircraft (low oxygen level detected can trigger a warning via the speakers 112, initiation of oxygen flow via the regulator 119, a descent to a lower altitude via the navigation unit 248 and the autopilot 254, and information from the physiological sensors 118 can be used to monitor attribute(s) of a user, provide alerts of values that deviate from normal or expected ranges, and, in the event of an emergency condition, result in automated actions being taken through various components to address any detected condition, par.61-62, the processor component can detect that blood oxygen has fallen below a critical threshold value, such as 70%. At this trigger value, the processor component can transmit to a navigation system or avionics system or autopilot unit via a communication link an instruction to initiate a descent to a lower altitude. This functionality can ensure that in an event of low blood oxygen, which may lead to unresponsiveness in a pilot or copilot, the plane can automatically descend to a safer altitude where oxygen is more abundant, par.124), instruct the avionics system to assume at least partial control of the aircraft to increase the level of automation (par.61-62 and par.124); and
in response to determining that the pilot is experiencing hypoxia, cause a hypoxia alert to be presented to the pilot; and transmit the hypoxia alert to remote monitoring personnel (low oxygen level detected can trigger a warning via the speakers 112, initiation of oxygen flow via the regulator 119, a descent to a lower altitude via the navigation unit 248 and the autopilot 254, a mayday or pan pan call via the radio 250, setting of 7700 on the transponder 252, emergency transmission via 121.5 via the ELT 270, or a phone call to a family member or ATC via the smartphone 274, par.61).
Since automatically activating an avionics system based on determined hypoxia/low blood oxygen is well known in the art, so it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to control/activate any automated system if hypoxia is detected in Rotenstreich’s invention, as taught by Ruttler’s invention, to provide more oxygen to the subject/pilot and avoid any dangerous/emergency situation from lack of oxygen.
As to claim 3, Rotenstreich teaches the computer apparatus, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: continuously characterize a chromaticity of the identified capillaries (images comprises monochromatic images, page 4, lines 11-12, he invention the image data comprises a set of monochromatic images in page 5, lines 4-5, page 12, lines 1-3, page 13, lines 24-30, and page 32, lines 1-5); and determine a blood oxygen saturation of the pilot based on the chromaticity characterization (determining oxygen saturation from images comprising monochromatic images, page 4, lines 11-12, he invention the image data comprises a set of monochromatic images in page 5, lines 4-5, page 12, lines 1-3, page 13, lines 24-30, and page 32, lines 1-5).
As to claim 4, Rotenstreich teaches the computer apparatus, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to apply one or more filters to the image stream to characterize the chromaticity (filters for improved images, page 26, lines 1-10, page 27, lines 13-15).
As to claim 6, Rotenstreich teaches the computer apparatus, wherein: the at least one processor is further configured to retrieve a user specific ocular profile defining a range of capillary widths and chromaticity for the pilot; and determining the cranial blood flow level and determining the blood oxygen saturation comprises comparing the characterized width and characterized chromaticity to the user specific ocular profile (using previous identified images features for comparison with recently identified images, page 15, lines 12-15, and page 18, lines 18-33).
As to claim 7, Rotenstreich teaches the computer apparatus, wherein the processor embodies a trained neural network (the processor uses machine learning procedures, such as, neural network, page 15, lines 26-35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim objections, 112, 101 and 102 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections, 112, 101 and 102 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY A ABOUELELA whose telephone number is (571)270-7917. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at 5712725596. 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.
/MAY A ABOUELELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights