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 claims 1-13 and 23-29 in the reply filed on 02/19/26 is acknowledged.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No 2018/0096198 granted to Tzvieli et al (hereinafter “Tzvieli”).
In reference to claim 1, Tzvieli discloses a head-mountable device [e.g. frame 15], comprising: a first image sensor [e.g. cameras 18 and 36] oriented to capture a first luminance of a first area of skin around an eye [e.g. periorbital area 19 and 33; paragraph 0056]; a second image sensor [e.g. cameras 48 and 49] oriented to capture a second luminance of a second area of skin around a nose [e.g. region 41; paragraph 0056]; and a processor [e.g. processor 401] configured to determine a pulse signal [e.g. paragraphs 0275 and 0216 “physiological response”] based on changes in at least one of the first luminance or the second luminance captured over time using at least one of the first image sensor or the second image sensor [e.g. paragraphs 0273-0276].
In reference to claim 2, Tzvieli discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine the pulse signal based on an average of the changes in the first luminance captured by the first image sensor and the changes in the second luminance captured by the second image sensor [e.g. paragraph 0082].
In reference to claim 3, Tzvieli discloses wherein the processor is further configured to filter the changes in at least one of the first luminance or the second luminance captured by the first or second image sensors over time in a first frequency band to obtain the pulse signal [e.g. paragraph 0249].
In reference to claim 4, Tzvieli discloses wherein the first image sensor is an infrared image sensor [e.g. paragraph 0168].
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.
Claims 5 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tzvieli in view of U.S. Patent No 9,750,420 granted to Agrawal et al (hereinafter “Agrawal”). Tzvieli discloses a head-mountable device but fails to disclose an infrared illuminator oriented to illuminate the first area of skin around the eye. Agrawal discloses a system using facial feature selection for heart rate detection and describes infrared light emitted by the device to detect a facial feature such as the eye [e.g. column 14: lines 27-46]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Tzvieli, to include the infrared illuminator as taught by Agrawal, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of being able to detected a bodily feature.
In reference to claim 23, Tzvieli discloses a head-mountable device [e.g. frame 15], comprising: a first image sensor [e.g. cameras 18 and 36] oriented to capture a first luminance of a first area of skin around an eye [e.g. periorbital area 19 and 33; paragraph 0056]; a second image sensor [e.g. cameras 48 and 49] oriented to capture a second luminance of a second area of skin around a nose [e.g. region 41; paragraph 0056]; a display unit [e.g. paragraph 0167]; and a processor [e.g. processor 401] operatively coupled to the first image sensor, the second image sensor, and the display unit, the processor configured to: determine, for each of a plurality of frames captured over time by at least one of the first image sensor or the second image sensor, a luminance value corresponding to at least one region of interest of the first area of skin or the second area of skin [e.g. paragraphs 0275-0276]; generate a luminance signal based on the luminance value [e.g. paragraphs 0275-0276]; and display, via the display unit, an indication of a heart rate based on the pulse signal [e.g. paragraph 0259]. Tzvieli, however, fails to describe filter the luminance signal within a first frequency band to obtain a pulse signal. Agrawal describes this in column 12: line 53-column 13: line 10. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Tzvieli to include filtering as taught by Agrawal, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of focusing on signals of interest and omitting potential noise or other disturbances.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-13, 24-26, and 28-29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In reference to claim 6, the closest prior art references of Tzvieli and Agrawal fail to describe comprising a light seal configured to block the first area of skin around the eye from external light sources.
In reference to claims 7, 10, 11, 25, and 28, the closest prior art references of Tzvieli and Agrawal fail to describe a third image sensor oriented to capture images of a portion of a chest, second and third image sensors being infrared image sensors, and second and third image sensors being a single image sensor.
In reference to claims 8, 26, and 29, the closest prior art references of Tzvieli and Agrawal fail to describe an inertial measurement unit.
In reference to claim 9, the closest prior art references of Tzvieli and Agrawal fail to describe the processor filtering changes in the third image sensor over time.
In reference to claim 12, the closest prior art references to Tzvieli and Agrawal fail to describe an infrared illuminator oriented to illuminate a portion of the chest.
In reference to claim 13, the closest prior art references of Tzvieli and Agrawal do disclose a display unit. However, the claim is dependent on claim 7 which is objected to and would be considered allowable if written in independent form.
In reference to claim 24, the closest prior art references to Tzvieli and Agrawal fail to disclose filter a signal within a second frequency band different from the first frequency band.
Claim 27 is allowable. The closest prior art references of Tzvieli and Agrawal fail to describe comprising a light seal configured to block the first area of skin around the eye from external light sources.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NADIA AHMAD MAHMOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-3975. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/NADIA A MAHMOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796