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 § 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Claim 9 is directed to a signal per se.
Claim 9 explicitly recites “A computer-readable storage medium containing a program”. Thus, a computer readable medium is actually claimed. The Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of machine readable media can encompass non-statutory transitory forms of signal transmission, such as a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se (MPEP 2106.03). The specification as filed does not define a computer-readable storage medium containing a program. Therefore, the Specification as filed does not limit the definition of “computer-readable storage medium containing a program” to non-transitory mediums.
Since a transitory signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter (MPEP 2106.03), thus claim 9 is nonstatutory under 35 U.S.C. §101.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takita (United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0212663) in view of Porges et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0317041), hereinafter referenced as Porges.
Regarding claim 1, Takita discloses a measuring instrument comprising: an image-capturing unit configured to acquire a moving image by performing image capturing on a living organism (figure 1 exhibits CCD 103 as disclosed at paragraph 27; paragraph 30 teaches that moving images are captured; capturing images of a living organism is an intended use of the sensor and it is apparent that a camera can capture images of a living organism, such as a person); a pixel value calculation unit configured to calculate, from each of images constituting the moving image, a representative value of pixel values of pixels (paragraph 39 teaches that AFE 104 calculates a luminance level of the pixels in the image); and an image-capturing control unit configured to specify an exposure time and a sensitivity based on an optimal frame rate and the representative value so that the representative value falls within a prescribed range (figure 3 exhibits an exposure program diagram that shows exposure and sensitivity settings based on a detected luminance level as disclosed at paragraph 41), wherein the image-capturing unit performs the image capturing on the living organism with the optimal frame rate, the exposure time, and the sensitivity (paragraph 44 teaches that image capturing is performed with the updated settings). However, Takita fails to disclose that the representative value is calculated in a target region containing an optical image of the living organism.
Porges is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Porges teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of ensuring that a subject is properly exposed in captured images would have prompted a predictable variation of Takita by applying Porges s known principal of controlling exposure settings based on the brightness in a target region including the face of the subject (paragraph 61 teaches using image data of a ROI to determine exposure settings; paragraph 10 teaches that the ROI is a region including skin on the face of the subject).
In view of the motivations such as ensuring that a subject is properly exposed in captured images one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Takita.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Takita in view of Porges discloses the measuring instrument according to claim 1, wherein the image-capturing control unit adjusts the sensitivity when the representative value is below the prescribed range and the exposure time is greater than or equal to an image-capturing time interval determined from the optimal frame rate (figure 3 exhibits range D when an exposure time becomes equal to the frame rate at 1/60s then the gain is adjusted as disclosed at paragraph 50) and adjusts the exposure time when the representative value is below the prescribed range and the exposure time is shorter than the image-capturing time interval (figure 3 exhibits range B wherein when the exposure time is less than the frame rate, then the exposure time is further increased as needed up to a maximum exposure time of 1/60).
Regarding claim 3, Takita in view of Porges discloses the measuring instrument according to claim 1, wherein the image-capturing control unit adjusts the exposure time when the representative value is above the prescribed range and the sensitivity is lower than or equal to a lower limit level of sensitivity (figure 3 shows that if a subject is brightness transitions from the range D to the range B, then the exposure time changes after the sensitivity is reduced to 0) and adjusts the sensitivity when the representative value is above the prescribed range and the sensitivity is higher than the lower limit level of sensitivity (figure 3 exhibits range D in which as the brightness increases, the sensitivity is adjusted until the sensitivity becomes 0).
Regarding claim 4, Takita in view of Porges discloses the measuring instrument according to claim 2, wherein the adjusting of the exposure time is to specify the exposure time by selecting any of a plurality of candidate exposure times calculated from the optimal frame rate (figure 3 shows that any exposure time between 1/500 and 1/60 can be selected; paragraph 44 teaches that the frame rate is 60 frames per second).
Regarding claim 5, Takita in view of Porges discloses measuring instrument according to claim 1, wherein the image-capturing control unit specifies the exposure time to a value that is less than or equal to an image-capturing time interval determined from the optimal frame rate (figure 3 shows that any exposure time between 1/500 and 1/60 can be selected; paragraph 44 teaches that the frame rate is 60 frames per second).
Regarding claim 6, Takita in view of Porges discloses the measuring instrument according to claim 2, wherein when the representative value is below the prescribed range, the exposure time is greater than or equal to the image-capturing time interval, and the sensitivity is lower than an upper limit level of sensitivity, the adjusting of the sensitivity involves specifying a new sensitivity that is higher than the sensitivity (figure 3 shows that in range D, once the exposure time has reached a maximum value and until the sensitivity reaches a maximum value of 20dB, then the sensitivity is increased as the luminance decreases).
Regarding claim 7, Takita in view of Porges discloses the measuring instrument according to claim 3, wherein when the representative value is above the prescribed range and the sensitivity is higher than the lower limit level of sensitivity, the adjusting of the sensitivity involves specifying a new sensitivity that is lower than the sensitivity (figure 3 shows that in range D, as the luminance increases, the sensitivity is decreased until it reaches a minimum sensitivity of 0dB).
Claim 8, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the instrument of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Takita discloses a computer-readable storage medium containing a program (paragraph 89 discloses an operating program stored in memory) configured to cause a computer to perform: a function of acquiring a moving image by performing image capturing on a living organism (figure 1 exhibits CCD 103 as disclosed at paragraph 27; paragraph 30 teaches that moving images are captured; capturing images of a living organism is an intended use of the sensor and it is apparent that a camera can capture images of a living organism, such as a person); a function of calculating, from each of images constituting the moving image, a representative value of pixel values of pixels (paragraph 39 teaches that AFE 104 calculates a luminance level of the pixels in the image); a function of specifying an exposure time and a sensitivity based on an optimal frame rate and the representative value so that the representative value falls within a prescribed range (figure 3 exhibits an exposure program diagram that shows exposure and sensitivity settings based on a detected luminance level as disclosed at paragraph 41), wherein in the function of acquiring the moving image, the image capturing is performed on the living organism with the optimal frame rate, the exposure time, and the sensitivity (paragraph 44 teaches that image capturing is performed with the updated settings). However, Takita fails to disclose that the representative value is calculated in a target region containing an optical image of the living organism; and a function of calculating a pulse wave signal from a temporal change in the representative value.
Porges is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Porges teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of ensuring that a subject is properly exposed in captured images and monitoring vital signs of a patient would have prompted a predictable variation of Takita by applying Porges’s known principal of controlling exposure settings based on the brightness in a target region including the face of the subject (paragraph 61 teaches using image data of a ROI to determine exposure settings; paragraph 10 teaches that the ROI is a region including skin on the face of the subject) and calculating a pulse wave signal from a temporal change in the representative value (figure 12 shows that a pulse wave is calculated based on a temporal change in pixel signal levels as disclosed at paragraph 83).
In view of the motivations such as ensuring that a subject is properly exposed in captured images and monitoring vital signs of a patient one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Takita.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, Takita in view of Porges discloses the measuring instrument according to claim 3, wherein the adjusting of the exposure time is to specify the exposure time by selecting any of a plurality of candidate exposure times calculated from the optimal frame rate (figure 3 shows that any exposure time between 1/500 and 1/60 can be selected; paragraph 44 teaches that the frame rate is 60 frames per second).
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ietomi et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0141371) teaches a method for adjusting exposure time and sensitivity.
Redtel (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0068670) teaches a method of pulse wave imaging.
Sudo (United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0115695) teaches a method of exposure control.
Nashizawa (United States Patent Application Publication 2017/0171446) teaches a method of exposure control.
Shiohara (United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0100112) teaches a method of exposure control.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON A FLOHRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7238. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-3:00.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-272-7564. 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.
JASON A. FLOHRE
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/JASON A FLOHRE/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637