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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/08/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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 when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
Output unit in claim 1;
Setting unit in claim 5; and
Evaluation unit in claim 5.
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.
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, 5-8 are 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 5 recites the limitation “the nostrils”, “the subject processed image data” and "the flow velocity” in lines 7, 7-8 and 9, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of the limitations in the claim. For the prior art purposes, the limitations are interpreted as “nostrils”, “the subject in the processed image data” and "a flow velocity”, respectively.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for its dependency to claim 5.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the energy metabolism” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim. For the prior art purposes, the limitation is interpreted as “an energy metabolism”.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the nostrils”, “the subject processed image data” and "the flow velocity” in lines 7, 7-8 and 9, respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of the limitations in the claim. For the prior art purposes, the limitations are interpreted as “nostrils”, “the subject in the processed image data” and "a flow velocity”, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 4, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by us patent application publication no. 2020/0138292 Choi et al. (hereinafter Choi).
For claims 1 and 4, Choi as applied discloses an exhaled breath visualization system (see, e.g., FIGS. 15-16, 28 and 31-32) comprising:
an infrared camera that detects light in the infrared region emitted from a face of a subject to obtain image data (see, e.g., pars. 75-78 and 147 and FIGS. 1A-C and FIG. 28, which teach using an IR camera to image a region around the face of a patient);
a processing unit that subtracts, from first image data obtained at a first time, second image data obtained at a second time prior to the first time, to generate processed image data (see ,e.g., pars. 116-118 and 147-150 and FIGS. 15, 16 and 28, which teach determining differences between frames obtained at a fixed interval); and
an output unit that outputs the processed image data (see, e.g., pars. 61, 96-101, 116-118, and 148-149 and FIGS. 11, 15, 16 and 28, which teach outputting the exhale velocity determined from the changes in intensity between the frames).
For claim 2, Choi as applied discloses that the infrared camera detects light in a mid-infrared region (see, e.g., pars. 59, 76 and 147, which teach using a band-pass filter with the IR camera).
For Claims 5 and 8, Choi as applied discloses an exhaled breath evaluation system (see, e.g., FIGS. 15-16, 28 and 31-32) comprising:
an infrared camera that detects light in the infrared region emitted from a face of a subject to obtain image data (see, e.g., pars. 75-78 and 147 and FIGS. 1A-C and FIG. 28, which teach using an IR camera to image a region around the face of a patient);
a processing unit that subtracts, from first image data obtained at a first time, second image data obtained at a second time prior to the first time, to generate processed image data (see ,e.g., pars. 116-118 and 147-150 and FIGS. 15, 16 and 28, which teach determining differences between frames obtained at a fixed interval);
a setting unit that sets a region of interest below the nostrils of the subject processed image data (see, e.g., pars. 116-118 and FIGS. 15, 16, which teach segmenting an exhale region providing a clear view of the exhale and isolating therefrom regions that belong to mouth and/or nose exhale); and
an evaluation unit that calculates the flow velocity of the exhaled breath of the subject from the change over time in signal intensity on the region of interest (see, e.g., pars. 61, 96-101, 116-118, and 148-149 and FIGS. 11, 15, 16 and 28, which teach computing the exhale velocity from the changes in intensity between the frames).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of us patent no. 5877804 to Otsuki et al. (hereinafter Otsuki).
For claim 3, while Choi as applied does not explicitly teach, Otsuki in the analogous art teaches that the processing unit uses, as the second image data, an average of image data captured over a predetermined period of time before the first time (see, e.g., lines 65-67 in col. 2, lines 1-9 in col. 3, lines 55-67 in col. 9, lines 1-9 and 18-35 in col. 10 and FIG. 6 of Otsuki).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi to use the past average image as taught by Otsuki because doing so would exclude image data corresponding to an afterimage of monitored object (see, e.g., lines 65-67 in col. 2, lines 1-9 in col. 3 of Otsuki).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of CN patent application publication no. 106344024 to Han et al. (hereinafter Han).
For claim 6, while Choi as applied does not explicitly teach, Han in the analogous art teaches that the evaluation unit calculates an opening area of the nostril from a diameter of the nostril, and calculates a flow rate of the exhaled breath by using the flow velocity and the opening area (see, e.g., lines 20-38 in page 2 of a translation of Han, which teaches calculating a cross-sectional area of the nostril from its diameter and calculating the flow rate volume by multiplying the area with the flow velocity).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi to calculate the flow rate as taught by Han because doing so would allow detecting patient’s breathing volume in real time non-invasively, continuously and conveniently (see, e.g., lines 33-35 in page 1 of the translation of Han).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Han and further in view of Us patent application publication no. 2012/0209128 to Jung et al. (hereinafter Jung).
For claim 7, while Choi in view of Han does not explicitly teach, Jung in the analogous art teaches that the evaluation unit evaluates the energy metabolism of the subject from the flow rate of the exhaled breath by referring to data showing a relationship between energy metabolism and volume of the exhaled breath (see, e.g., abstract and pars. 10, 19 and 26 of Jung, which teach determining an energy metabolism of a subject from the respiratory flow volume by determining and referring to the energy metabolism profile).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi in view of Han to evaluate the energy metabolism as taught by Jung because doing so would allow a reduction of a number of required measurements and a precise determination of the energy metabolism profile (see, e.g., pars. 11 and 13 of Jung).
Additional Citations
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
Yoo (us pat. pub. 2022/0047160)
Describes a ceiling artificial intelligence (AI) health monitoring system. In one embodiment, the system includes a monitoring device provided on a ceiling of a space to acquire health information from a patient, and a medical management device configured to apply the health information of the patient acquired to an artificial intelligence-based learning model to determine health condition information of the patient and provide the determination result to a doctor monitor. The medical management device is configured to provide remote medical diagnosis information from the doctor monitor to a user terminal.
Cardoso et al. (us pat. pub. 2013/0079658)
Describes a system and method for image-based determination of carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration in exhaled breath. In one embodiment, an image of the exhaled airstream of a subject of interest is received. The image is captured using a mid-wave infrared camera system having an optical filter tuned to the infrared absorption band of CO2. The image is preprocessed to isolate a region of pixels containing the exhaled airstream and intensity values of pixels in the identified region are normalized by a value of a known radiance such as that of the subject's nose or face. The image is analyzed to determine CO2 concentration levels of the exhaled airstream using a calibration curve which relates pixel intensity to CO.sub.2 concentrations. The calibration curve is derived using a physics-based parameterized model. The CO2 concentration levels are determined and communicated to a computer workstation.
Frank et al. (us pat. pub. 2020/0390337)
Describes embodiments of systems and methods that utilize images of a user's face to detect fever and intoxication. One embodiment of a system to detect fever includes first and second inward-facing head-mounted cameras that are located less than 5 cm from a user's face, are sensitive to wavelengths below 1050 nanometer, and are configured to capture images of respective first and second regions on the user's face. The system also includes a computer that calculates, based on baseline images captured with the cameras while the user did not have a fever, a baseline pattern of hemoglobin concentrations at regions on the face. The computer also calculates, based on a current set of images captured with the cameras, a current pattern of hemoglobin concentrations at the regions, and detects whether the user has a fever based on a deviation of the current pattern from the baseline pattern.
Table 1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See table 1 and form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOO RHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-6560. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 am - 6:00 pm et.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/WOO C RHIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights