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 § 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. (US 2015/0302158) in view of Kadambi et al. (WO 2023/196909) and Streit (US 2021/0141896).
With respect to claims 1, 4, 11, and 14, Morris et al. discloses a system comprising a processor (1002) and memory (1003; [0117]; [0123]) and computer-implemented method for determining a physiological signal from a video stream, the computer-implemented method comprising: capturing the video stream of a subject ([0025]), the video stream including a sequence of frames ([0025]); processing each frame of the video stream to identify a facial portion of the subject in each frame ([0025]); determining a periodical signal of the subject from the video stream ([0025]). Morris et al. does not teach processing batches of ordered frame sequences using a 3D convolutional neural network. However, Kadambi et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor utilizing 3D-CNN to learn spatio-temporal representation and predict PPG signal in facial videos ([0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Morris et al. with using 3D-CNN as taught by Kadambi et al. as deep learning and convolution neural networks can achieve state-of-the-art results on vital sign detection due to their flexibility ([0026]). Morris et al. does not teach a plurality of datasets in which one or more augmentations were applied to the plurality of datasets. However, Streit teaches in the same field of endeavor performing data augmentation in order to improve image data and improve accuracy of trained models ([0008]; [0126]; [0133]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Morris et al. with data augmentation as taught by Streit in improve image data and accuracy ([0008]; [0126]; [0133]).
With respect to claims 2-3 and 12-13, Morris et al. discloses ground truth data using pulse oximeter ([0022]; [0067]; [0091]).
With respect to claims 5 and 15, Streit discloses data augmentation includes at least one of horizontal flip and illumination ([0126]).
With respect to claims 6 and 16, Morris et al. discloses heart rate ([0006]; [0020]).
With respect to claims 7, 9, 17, and 19, Morris et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed, including facial region ([0023]; [0074]), cheek ([0028]), and eye ([0023]), except for cropping to 64 x 64 pixels. However, Streit teaches in the same field of endeavor to crop received images to focus on distinguishable features ([0063]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Morris et al. with cropping of the received image as taught by Streit in order to focus on distinguishable features ([0063]). The Examiner notes that a change in size or proportion is well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
With respect to claims 8 and 18, Morris et al. discloses wherein the video stream includes one or more of a visible-light video stream, a near-infrared video stream, a longwave-infrared video stream, a thermal video stream, and an audio stream of the subject ([0025]; [0028]; [0047]; [0126]).
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. (US 2015/0302158) in view of Kadambi et al. (WO 2023/196909) and Streit (US 2021/0141896) as applied to claims 1 and 11, further in view of Khanzada (US 2022/0037022).
Morris et al. in view of Kadambi et al. and Streit discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for augmentation includes Gaussian noise. However, Khanzada teaches in the same field of endeavor wherein data augmentation includes Gaussian noise ([0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Morris et al. with Gaussian noise as taught by Khanzada as a substitution of one data augmentation for another is well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. (US 2015/0302158) in view of Kadambi et al. (WO 2023/196909) and Streit (US 2021/0141896) as applied to claims 1 and 11, further in view of Dieker et al. (US 2022/0383766).
Morris et al. in view of Kadambi et al. and Streit discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for combining at least two of a visible-light video stream, a near-infrared video stream, and a thermal video stream. However, Dieker et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor superimposing video with thermal (infrared) to show body temperature changes ([0077]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Morris et al. with superimposing video with thermal (infrared) imaging as taught by Dieker et al. in order to show body temperature changes ([0077]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 PETER LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Anhtuan T Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
/PETER LUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights