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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged that application is a National Stage application of PCT PCT/JP2022/046648 filed 12/19/2022. Priority to JAPAN 2022-021205 with a priority date of 02/15/2022 is acknowledged under 35 USC 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 11/05/2024 has been considered and placed in the application file.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an imager that captures an image” in claim 11. The specification defines the imager as “ imager 11 captures a thermal image of the at least one imaging target using thermal imaging camera. ” in ¶0020.
“an obtainer that obtains” in claim 11. The specification defines the obtainer as “Obtainer 12 obtains identification information for identifying the at least one imaging target in the thermal image captured by imager 11. For example, the identification information includes information for estimating which is the at least one imaging target in the thermal image captured by imager 11.” in ¶0021.
“an estimator that estimates” in claim 11. The specification defines the estimator as “ Estimator 13 estimates the state of each of the at least one estimation target among the at least one imaging target, based on the thermal image captured by imager 11 and the identification information obtained by obtainer 12. For example, estimator 13 identifies, based on the identification information, which is the at least one estimation target in the thermal image, and then estimates the state of each of the at least one estimation target based on a temperature for each of the at least one estimation target in the thermal image.” in ¶0028.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the
plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification.
Under MPEP 2143.03, "All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Claim 1 and Claim 11 recite “each of which” then listing “a person or an animal”. Since “or” is disjunctive, any one of the elements found in the prior art is sufficient to reject the claim. While citations have been provided for completeness and rapid prosecution, only one element is required. Because, on balance, it appears the disjunctive interpretation enjoys the most specification support and for that reason the disjunctive interpretation (one of A, B OR C) is being adopted for the purposes of this Office Action. Applicant’s comments and/or amendments relating to this issue are invited to clarify the claim language and the prosecution history.
Claim 4 recite “at least one” then listing “a predetermined temperature or higher in the thermal image”. Since “at least one” is disjunctive, any one of the elements found in the prior art is sufficient to reject the claim. While citations have been provided for completeness and rapid prosecution, only one element is required. Because, on balance, it appears the disjunctive interpretation enjoys the most specification support and for that reason the disjunctive interpretation (one of A, B OR C) is being adopted for the purposes of this Office Action. Applicant’s comments and/or amendments relating to this issue are invited to clarify the claim language and the prosecution history.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claims 1 and 11 and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claims 1-12 are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner will analyze Claim 1. The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below:
The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claim is related to a process since the claim is directed to a method.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of using a mental process to determine the location, sleeping state and temperature of a subject based on a thermal image. The claims recite mental processes that include determining characteristics of a subject based on an thermal image. Under Berkheimer v. HP, The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing images, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers, specifically non transitory computer readable medium, as a tool to perform the processes. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The Examiner interprets that the Claim 1 limitation does not provide additional elements or combination of additional elements to a practical application since the claims are not adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements fail to provide a technical improvement. Data gathering information that describes the position, temperature, and location of the person or animal in the image does not add a practical application and could reasonably be done by a person knowledgeable in thermal imaging. Setting a temperature evaluation for a fever and distinguishing between a person or animal functionally does not reflect a specific technical improvement to the method and could also be performed by a person interpreting the thermal image. The instant specification ¶0004-¶0005 describes the practical application being to add additional characteristics to help differentiate the subjects in the images, this applications fail to provide a technical improvement. Specifically, the analysis method does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. See Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (eligibility "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. If there are no additional elements in the claim, then it cannot be eligible. In such a case, after making the appropriate rejection, it is a best practice for the examiner to recommend an amendment, if possible, that would resolve eligibility of the claim.
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner interprets that the Claims do not amount to significantly more since the Claims state analyzing images for well-known characteristics with a high level of generality. The claims lack an inventive concept because the elements, considered individually and as an order combination are an abstract idea, and can easily be performed in the human mind based on data analysis, the data in this case being the characteristics of the thermal image, where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claims 2-10 depend on the independent claim/s include all the limitations of the independent claim. The Examiner finds that Claim 2 does not state significantly more since the claim adds limitation of estimating the state of sleep of the target, which is further data gathering activity, which is an additional element and under Step 2A prong 2 to be a mere recitation of mental process. It is insignificant extra solution activity of additional data gathering 2106.05(g). The Examiner finds that Claim 3 does not state significantly more since the claim adds limitation of indicating the total number of imaging targets which is more data gathering activity, which is an additional element and under Step 2A prong 2 to be a mere recitation of mental process. It is insignificant extra solution activity of additional data gathering 2106.05(g). The Examiner finds that Claim 4 does not state significantly more since the claim adds limitation of determining if the subject has a fever based on temperature which is well-understood, routine, conventional consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), which is an additional element and under Step 2A prong 2 to be a mere recitation of mental process. The Examiner finds that Claim 5 does not state significantly more since the claim adds limitation of adding additional characteristics which is mere data gathering which is an additional element and under Step 2A prong 2 to be a mere recitation of mental process. It is insignificant extra solution activity of additional data gathering 2106.05(g). The Examiner finds that Claim 6 does not state significantly more since the claim adds limitation of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which is selecting a target which is an additional element and under Step 2A prong 2 to be a mere recitation of mental process. It is insignificant extra solution activity of additional data manipulation 2106.05(g). The Examiner finds that Claim 7 does not state significantly more since the claim adds limitation of estimating the sleep location of the target which is further data gathering activity, which is an additional element and under Step 2A prong 2 to be a mere recitation of mental process. It is insignificant extra solution activity of additional data gathering 2106.05(g). The Examiner finds that Claim 8 does not state significantly more since the claim adds limitation of selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, selecting a target based on location, which is an additional element and under Step 2A prong 2 to be a mere recitation of mental process. It is insignificant extra solution activity of additional data manipulation 2106.05(g). The Examiner finds that Claim 9 does not state significantly more since the claim adds limitation of estimating the total number of the target is further data gathering activity, which is an additional element and under Step 2A prong 2 to be a mere recitation of mental process. It is insignificant extra solution activity of additional data gathering 2106.05(g). The Examiner finds that Claim 10 does not state significantly more since the claim adds limitation of estimating the total number of the targets animal versus human is further data gathering activity, which is an additional element and under Step 2A prong 2 to be a mere recitation of mental process. It is insignificant extra solution activity of additional data gathering 2106.05(g).
Thus, Claims 2-10 recite the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more. Therefore, the Examiner interprets that the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For the analogous independent claim 11 to the independent claim 1, the analogous limitations can be analyzed in the same way as above for the claim 1 hence rejected under 101. Moreover, the claim of 11 further recites at the same statutory category of “device” which is a limitation that the examiner interprets that the claim is related to a machine since the claim is directed to a device to estimate the state of a subject using thermal imaging, and is consistent with the abstract ideas, the claims recite mental processes that include interpreting data and making decisions. Under Berkheimer v. HP, The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing images, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers and computer components as a tool to perform the processes. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018). This limitation of a residual component just further implements the abstract ideas to be performed by generic computer or software/hardware components of additional elements of the different types of analyzation methods. Therefore, the Examiner interprets that the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
For the independent claim 12 which incorporates the entirety of claim 1, the analogous limitations can be analyzed in the same way as above for the claim 1 hence rejected under 101. Moreover, the claim of 12 further recites at the same statutory category of “non transitory computer readable medium” which is a limitation that the examiner interprets that the claims is related to a machine since the claim is directed to a computer to implement the method to estimate the state of a subject using thermal imaging, and is consistent with the abstract ideas, the claims recite mental processes that include interpreting data and making decisions. Under Berkheimer v. HP, The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing images, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers and computer components as a tool to perform the processes. Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018). This limitation of a residual component just further implements the abstract ideas to be performed by generic computer or software/hardware components of additional elements of the different types of analyzation methods. Therefore, the Examiner interprets that the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kusukame et al (US Patent Publication US 2015/0247647 A1, hereafter referred to as Kusukame).
Regarding Claim 1, Kusukame teaches a state estimation method (Kusukame Fig 1, 16 and ¶0052, and ¶ discloses a state determination unit as part of a sensing system) comprising:
capturing a thermal image (Kusukame Fig 8, 11, and Fig 14, S41 discloses a thermal image acquisition unit) of at least one imaging target, each of which is a person or an animal (Kusukame Fig 22 S62 discloses identifying the object based on thermal imagining and ¶0171 discloses distinguishing between humans or pets in the thermal image), using a thermal imaging camera (Kusukame Fig 27, ¶0241 discloses the thermal image sensor which captures thermal images);
obtaining identification information (Kusukame Fig 2 and Fig 4 and ¶0053 discloses an identification unit that obtains identification information from the thermal image) for identifying the at least one imaging target in the thermal image captured in the capturing (Kusukame Fig 2 and Fig 4 and Fig 10and ¶0053 discloses an identification unit that obtains identification information from the thermal image and determines the identity of the object in the image) ; and
estimating a state of each of at least one estimation target included among the at least one imaging target (Kusukame Fig 10, S32 and Fig 14, S42 and ¶0060 discloses determining the state of the object based on the thermal image), based on the thermal image captured in the capturing and the identification information obtained in the obtaining (Kusukame Fig 2 and Fig 4 and Fig 10and ¶0053 discloses an identification unit that obtains identification information from the thermal image and determines the identity of the object in the image).
Regarding Claim 2, Kusukame teaches the state estimation method according to claim 1,
wherein in the estimating (Kusukame Fig 10, S32 and Fig 14, S42 and ¶0060 discloses determining the state of the object based on the thermal image), a state of sleep of each of the at least one estimation target is estimated (Kusukame ¶0111, ¶0189, ¶0190, ¶0199, ¶0201 and discloses the state of the object may be sleeping or resting and it may be a human or animal).
Regarding Claim 3, Kusukame teaches the state estimation method according to claim 1,
wherein the identification information (Kusukame Fig 2 and Fig 4 and ¶0053 discloses an identification unit that obtains identification information from the thermal image) includes information indicating a total number of the at least one imaging target (Kusukame ¶0077 discloses identifying all objects in the object space of the thermal images including people and animals).
Regarding Claim 5, Kusukame teaches the state estimation method according to claim 1,
wherein the identification information (Kusukame Fig 2 and Fig 4 and ¶0053 discloses an identification unit that obtains identification information from the thermal image) includes:
information indicating a total number of at least one person (Kusukame Fig 6A, Fig 11, Fig 16A, and ¶0059 and discloses a person or multiple people being included in the thermal imaging target) included among the at least one imaging target (Kusukame Fig 22 S62 discloses identifying the object based on thermal imagining and ¶0171 discloses distinguishing between humans or pets in the thermal image); and
information indicating a total number of at least one animal (Kusukame FIG 6B, ¶0059, ¶0080 discloses the imaging target including identifying an animal) includes included among the at least one imaging target (Kusukame Fig 22 S62 discloses identifying the object based on thermal imagining and ¶0171 discloses distinguishing between humans or pets in the thermal image).
Regarding Claim 7, Kusukame teaches the state estimation method according to claim 1,
wherein the identification information (Kusukame Fig 2 and Fig 4 and ¶0053 discloses an identification unit that obtains identification information from the thermal image) includes information indicating a sleep location (Kochi ¶0189, ¶0190, ¶0199 discloses identifying the position of objects including the body parts of the user while sleeping, therefore the examiner is interpreting this to be the position and location of the user while sleeping) of each of the at least one estimation target (Kusukame Fig 10, S32 and Fig 14, S42 and ¶0060 discloses determining the state of the object based on the thermal image).
Regarding Claim 8, Kusukame teaches the state estimation method according to claim 7,
wherein the estimating includes identifying the at least one estimation target (Kusukame Fig 10, S32 and Fig 14, S42 and ¶0060 discloses determining the state of the object based on the thermal image) based on a location of each of the at least one imaging target (Kusukame ¶0217, ¶0259, Fig 2, 123, and Fig 5, S21 discloses sensing system identifies an object included in the object space in the thermal image acquired in and identifies the location of the object, based on this thermal image) in the thermal image captured in the capturing (Kusukame Fig 8, 11, and Fig 14, S41 discloses a thermal image acquisition unit).
Regarding Claim 9, Kusukame teaches the state estimation method according to claim 1,
wherein the identification information (Kusukame Fig 2 and Fig 4 and ¶0053 discloses an identification unit that obtains identification information from the thermal image) includes information indicating a total number (Kusukame ¶0077 discloses identifying all objects in the object space of the thermal images including people and animals) of the at least one estimation target (Kusukame Fig 5 S21-S22 discloses determining the state of the object in space based on the identity information and location of the object in the thermal image).
Regarding Claim 10, Kusukame teaches the state estimation method according to claim 1,
wherein the identification information (Kusukame Fig 2 and Fig 4 and ¶0053 discloses an identification unit that obtains identification information from the thermal image) includes:
information indicating a total number of at least one person (Kusukame Fig 6A, Fig 11, Fig 16A, and ¶0059 and discloses a person or multiple people being included in the thermal imaging target) included among the at least one estimation target (Kusukame Fig 5 S21-S22 discloses determining the state of the object in space based on the identity information and location of the object in the thermal image); and
information indicating a total number of at least one animal (Kusukame FIG 6B, ¶0059, ¶0080 discloses the imaging target including identifying an animal) included among the at least one estimation target (Kusukame Fig 5 S21-S22 discloses determining the state of the object in space based on the identity information and location of the object in the thermal image).
Regarding Claim 11, Kusukame teaches a state estimation device (Kusukame ¶0006, ¶0052, ¶0131 discloses a sensing method and device) comprising:
an imager (Kusukame Fig 27, ¶0241 discloses the thermal image sensor which captures thermal images) that captures a thermal image of at least one imaging target, each of which is a person or an animal (Kusukame Fig 22 S62 discloses identifying the object based on thermal imagining and ¶0171 discloses distinguishing between humans or pets in the thermal image), using a thermal imaging camera (Kusukame Fig 27, ¶0241 discloses the thermal image sensor which captures thermal images);
an obtainer that obtains identification information (Kusukame Fig 2 and Fig 4 and ¶0053 discloses an identification unit that obtains identification information from the thermal image) for identifying the at least one imaging target in the thermal image captured by the imager (Kusukame Fig 2 and Fig 4 and Fig 10and ¶0053 discloses an identification unit that obtains identification information from the thermal image and determines the identity of the object in the image); and
an estimator that estimates a state of each of at least one estimation target included among the at least one imaging target (Kusukame Fig 10, S32 and Fig 14, S42 and ¶0060 discloses determining the state of the object based on the thermal image), based on the thermal image captured by the imager and the identification information obtained by the obtainer (Kusukame Fig 2 and Fig 4 and Fig 10 and ¶0053 discloses an identification unit that obtains identification information from the thermal image and determines the identity of the object in the image).
Regarding Claim 12, Kusukame teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (Kusukame ¶0319-¶0320 discloses computer systems configured with a microprocessor and RAM memory) having recorded thereon a program for causing a computer to execute (Kusukame ¶0319-¶0321 discloses the program being stored and carried out) the state estimation method according to claim 1 (Kusukame see mapping of Claim 1 above for state estimation method).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Kusukame et al (US Patent Publication US 2015/0247647 A1, hereafter referred to as Kusukame) in view of Tsuda et al (US Patent Publication US 2019/0162439 A1, hereafter referred to as Tsuda).
Regarding Claim 4, Kusukame teaches the state estimation method according to claim 3,
wherein when a total number of at least one section having a predetermined temperature or higher in the thermal image captured (Kusukame Fig 11, ¶0147 discloses an image where one section has a region where the temperature is higher based on a predetermined temperature range) in the capturing exceeds the total number of the at least one imaging target (Kusukame Fig 11, ¶0147 discloses an image where one section has a region where the temperature is higher based on a predetermined temperature range and the image having two people in the image)
a section having a higher temperature among the at least one section (Kusukame Fig 11, ¶0147 discloses an image where one section has a region where the temperature is higher based on a predetermined temperature range).
Kusukame does not explicitly disclose the estimating includes preferentially identifying, as the at least one imaging target.
Tsuda is in the same field of image analysis of thermal images. Further, Tsuda teaches the estimating includes preferentially identifying, as the at least one imaging target (Tsuda ¶0050, ¶0099, Fig 9 4a discloses identifying the region of interest for the target based on a temperature region detector and expands or contracts the region based on the person candidate target region, the examiner is interpreting by selecting the region of the person this is preferentially selecting compared to other areas in the image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kusukame by incorporating the identified region of interest of the person based on a temperature as taught by Tsuda; to make an invention that can automatically detect the person in the thermal image and perform a temperature analysis on said person; thus one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need to increase detection accuracy while reducing the calculation amount and decreasing storage capacity required of the memory as disclosed by Tsuda in ¶0014.
Thus, 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 6, Kusukame teaches the state estimation method according to claim 5,
wherein the estimating (Kusukame Fig 10, S32 and Fig 14, S42 and ¶0060 discloses determining the state of the object based on the thermal image)
present in a predetermined location earlier (Kusukame ¶0058-¶0059, ¶0080 discloses the regions of interest being based on the predetermined temperature ranges, meaning the regions of interest or location the person is predetermined) among the at least one imaging target in the thermal image captured in the capturing (Kusukame Fig 22 S62 discloses identifying the object based on thermal imagining and ¶0171 discloses distinguishing between humans or pets in the thermal image).
Kusukame does not explicitly disclose includes preferentially identifying, as the person, an imaging target.
Tsuda is in the same field of image analysis of thermal images. Further, Tsuda teaches includes preferentially identifying, as the person, an imaging target (Tsuda ¶0050, ¶0099, Fig 9 4a discloses identifying the region of interest for the target based on a temperature region detector and expands or contracts the region based on the person candidate target region, the examiner is interpreting by selecting the region of the person this is preferentially selecting compared to other areas in the image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kusukame by incorporating the identified region of interest of the person based on a temperature as taught by Tsuda; to make an invention that can automatically detect the person in the thermal image and perform a temperature analysis on said person; thus one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need to increase detection accuracy while reducing the calculation amount and decreasing storage capacity required of the memory as disclosed by Tsuda in ¶0014.
Thus, 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.
Reference Cited
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
WO Patent WO-2019162459-A1 to MACNEISH et al. discloses the analysis of thermal images to determine the health status of humans.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-6413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am- 5:00pm.
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, Oneal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. 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.
/RACHEL L ROBERTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights