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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on April 1, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6-8 have been withdrawn as to being drawn to unelected Group 2. Examiner misidentified claims 9-111 as being drawn to Group 2, however, they are dependent upon claim 1 and thus drawn to elected Group 1. Claims 1-5 and 9-11 are pending in this application.
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 1-5 and 9-11 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.
Claim 1, lines 3-4 recite the phrase “a processor configured to generate second information on biological activity of the user from first information on motion of the human body of the user from first information on motion of the human body of the user obtained based on an output of the sensor.” This phrase is unclear for several reasons. First, it is unclear how the first information is obtained. It is unclear if the “first information” is the same or different than the data collected from the sensor described in line 2. Next, it is unclear how the output of the sensor is collected or determined. It is also unclear if the “output of the sensor” is the same or different from the “first information on motion of the human body of the user.”
Claim 1 also appears to recite a “fourth information” before reciting a “third information.” It is suggested to name the information in number order.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the fourth information includes at least one of the third information and the second information.” It is unclear how the fourth information can contain be both based on the second information as required in claim 1, and also includes at least one of the third information and the second information. Similar issues exist in claim 3.
Claim 2, line 3 recites the phrase “the processor generates.” This appears to be a method step in an apparatus claim. The language should be corrected to “the processor is configured to generate.” Similar issues exists in claims 3-5 and 9-111.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the third information, and sensor data relating to installation environment acquired from a sensor separately installed.” It is unclear if this limitation requires a third separately installed device (different from the “separate device” of claim 1). It is additionally unclear if the fourth information is based on 2 or 3 different types of information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticiapted by Kaisha (US 2019/0029457).
Regarding claim 1, as best the claim can be understood, Kaisha discloses a detection device comprising (e.g. as shown in Figures 6 and 8):
a sensor configured to detect motion of a human body of a user (e.g. vital signal detection units 30A); and
a processor (e.g. signal processing unit 40) configured to:
obtain first information based on motion of the human body of a user detected by the sensor output of the sensor (e.g. data collected from 33is; [0058])
generate second information on biological activity of the user (e.g. division of 33is signal into three data streams including 58ai which can be considered heart rate information because it is eventually used to calculate heart rate data 90a; [0058] – [0059]);
generate fourth information based on the second information (e.g. first heart rate determination unit 55i, [0065]);
generate third information on biological activity of the user acquired from an other detection device separately installed (e.g. information acquired by second vital signal detection unit 30B that is separate from 30A), and
transmit the fourth information to a server (e.g. transfer of all data to server as disclosed in [0047]).
Regarding claim 2, as best the claim can be understood, Kaisha additionally discloses wherein:
the first information is information in which values corresponding to the motion of at least a part of the human body of the user are arranged in time series (e.g. data collected from 33is; [0058] which can be considered to include motion of at least a portion of the human body, as a heartbeat is the motion of the human body),
the processor generates the second information corresponding to a heart rate and/or a respiration rate of the user based on the first information (e.g. division of 33is signal into three data streams including 58ai which can be considered heart rate information because it is eventually used to calculate heart rate data 90a; [0058] – [0059]);
the third information is information corresponding to a heart rate and/or a respiration rate of the user generated by the other detection device (e.g. information acquired by second vital signal detection unit 30B that is separate from 30A and can be separated in the same way as the data from 30A), and, and
the fourth information includes at least one of the third information and the second information (e.g. first heart rate determination unit 55i, [0065]).
Regarding claim 3, as best the claim can be understood, Kaisha additionally discloses wherein the processor generates the fourth information based on the second information, the third information, and sensor data relating to installation environment acquired from a sensor separately installed (e.g. vital sign information including heart rate, 90a as disclosed in Figure 8).
Regarding claim 4, as best the claim can be understood, Kaisha additionally discloses
wherein the processor transmits the first information to the server based on an instruction from the server (e.g. transfer of all data to server as disclosed in [0047]).
Regarding claim 5, as best the claim can be understood, Kaisha additionally discloses wherein the processor determines a state of the user based on the second information and the third information by using a model received from the server (e.g. determination of heart rate at s61 after removing anomalous values at s41 which will necessarily require a model).
Regarding claim 9, as best the claim can be understood, Kaisha additionally discloses wherein the sensor includes
a transmission antenna configured to transmit a first electromagnetic wave and a reception antenna configured to receive a second electromagnetic wave that is a reflected wave of the first electromagnetic wave reflected by the human body of the user (e.g. as shown in Figure 3),
the sensor generating an analog signal relating to motion of the human body of the user based on the first electromagnetic wave and the second electromagnetic wave (e.g. vital signals detected by vital sign signal detection unit 30A);
the processor includes an analog-to-digital converter configured to convert the analog signal into a digital signal (e.g. analog to digital converter 50 as disclosed in Figure 8); [0056] and
the detection device further includes an adjuster configured to adjust an amplitude of the analog signal based on the digital signal and output an adjusted analog signal to the processor (e.g. amplitude adjustment as disclosed in [0083]).
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 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaisha in view of Tesar et al (US 2015/0018622).
Regarding claims 10-11, as best the claim is understood, Kaisha discloses the claimed invention except the express mention the detection device further includes a window through which the first electromagnetic wave and the second electromagnetic wave pass and a heater configured to suppress condensation on the window by heating the window. Tesar discloses that it is well known to keep a window in a medical device (e.g. window of camera of [0091]) with a heater to suppress the condensation on the window. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the heater of Tesar in the device of Kaisha, since such a modification would provide the system with the predictable results of a reliable means of keeping the window clear.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda K Hulbert whose telephone number is (571)270-1912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571-272-8506. 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.
/Amanda K Hulbert/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights