DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b). Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 USC 101. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 USC 103. Claims 1-15 are rejected under non-statutory double patenting.
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 filed 5/15/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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: “light receiving element” in claim 1.
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.
The claim limitations will be interpreted as follows:
The “light receiving element” will be interpreted as a “light receiving sensor”, and equivalents thereof, consistent with [0063] of the specification.
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.
Claim 5 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.
The term “near the eyes” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near the eyes” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what is considered “near” vs “far” from the eyes. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the light receiving element will be considered “near the eyes” if they are on the face of the user.
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 4-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 4-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
Claim 4 recites “wherein the plurality of the light-receiving elements are placed on different positions on the user face”. This requires that the light receiving are on a user face, which means that the user’s face (i.e. the human body) is a part of the apparatus. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to include “configured to” language to make it clear the human body is not encompassed by the claim.
Claim 5 recites “wherein at least one of the plurality of light-receiving elements is positioned on the glabella of the user face, near the eyes of the user face, or on the cheeks of the user face”. This requires that the light receiving are on a user face, which means that the user’s face (i.e. the human body) is a part of the apparatus. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to include “configured to” language to make it clear the human body is not encompassed by the claim.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S PGPub 2018/0107275 A1) in view of Satoi et el. (U.S PGPub 2017/0231544 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches an information processing apparatus (Abstract), comprising:
a light source configured to emit light to a user face [0020]-[0021];
light-receiving element configured to receive reflection light of the light emitted to the user face [0020]-[0021]; and
a processor [0037] configured to:
generate both facial-expression analysis information [0018] based on the reflection light received by the light-receiving element [0020].
While Chen teaches the sensors can be used for physiological monitoring [0077], Chen is silent regarding generating bioanalysis information.
Satoi teaches a system for measuring blood flow in an area (Abstract). This system emits light to a face (Fig. 1A, 110) [0092], receives light reflected from the face [0096], and generates bioanalysis information [0075]+[0092].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chen to generate bioanalysis information, as taught by Satoi, because this allows for a more comfortable method for measuring vital signs at home, thereby improving the ability to care for a patient, as recognized by Satoi [0005].
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Chen further teaches further comprising: a plurality of light sources that include the light source (Fig. 2, 150) [0033]+[0039], and a plurality of light-receiving elements that include the light-receiving element (Fig. 2, 150) [0033]+[0039].
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Chen further teaches wherein each of the plurality of the light-receiving elements is a same type of sensor (Fig. 2, 150) [0033] (each of the light receiving elements can be a photodetector (light sensor)).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Chen further teaches wherein the plurality of the light-receiving elements are placed on different positions on the user face (Fig. 2, 150) [0033].
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Chen further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of light-receiving elements is positioned on the glabella of the user face, near the eyes of the user face, or on the cheeks of the user face (Fig. 2, 150)+ (Fig. 5, 520) [0033] (the light receiving elements are near the eyes and would be on the cheeks).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Chen further teaches wherein the facial-expression analysis information is based on a stored learning model [0026]+[0072].
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Chen further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute a facial-expression analysis process based on the stored learning model [0026]+[0047]+[0072].
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of reference teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Chen further teaches wherein the stored learning model includes corresponding data of facial-expression labels and feature data of skin-surface reflection-light signals [0020]+[0070]+[0072],
the skin-surface reflection-light signals are associated with skin-surface movements [0020], and
the facial-expression labels correspond to a plurality of different facial expressions [0026]+[0070] (while the example is of EMG sensor, [0070]+[0072] makes clear the machine learning algorithm can be used with the optical sensor signals, which are then correlated with the different facial expressions).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Chen fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to generate the bioanalysis information based on a signal component that reflects periodic fluctuations, and the signal component is extracted from the reflection light.
Satoi further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to generate the bioanalysis information based on a signal component that reflects periodic fluctuations [0177]-[0178], and the signal component is extracted from the reflection light [0177].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to generate bioanalysis information, as taught by Satoi, because this allows for a more comfortable method for measuring vital signs at home, thereby improving the ability to care for a patient, as recognized by Satoi [0005].
Regarding Claim 13, Chen teaches an information processing method (Abstract), comprising:
emitting, by a light source, light to a user face [0020]-[0021];
receiving, by a light-receiving element, reflection light based on the light emitted to the user face [0020]-[0021];
generating, by a processor [0037], both facial-expression analysis information [0018] based on the reflection light received by the light-receiving element [0020].
While Chen teaches the sensors can be used for physiological monitoring [0077], Chen is silent regarding generating bioanalysis information.
Satoi teaches a system for measuring blood flow in an area (Abstract). This system emits light to a face (Fig. 1A, 110) [0092], receives light reflected from the face [0096], and generates bioanalysis information [0075]+[0092].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chen to generate bioanalysis information, as taught by Satoi, because this allows for a more comfortable method for measuring vital signs at home, thereby improving the ability to care for a patient, as recognized by Satoi [0005].
Regarding Claim 14, Chen teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon (Fig. 6, 630), computer executable instructions, which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations [0037], the operations comprising:
emitting light to a user face [0020]-[0021];
receiving reflection light based on the light emitted to the user face [0020]-[0021];
generating both facial-expression analysis information [0018] based on the reflection light [0020].
While Chen teaches the sensors can be used for physiological monitoring [0077], Chen is silent regarding generating bioanalysis information.
Satoi teaches a system for measuring blood flow in an area (Abstract). This system emits light to a face (Fig. 1A, 110) [0092], receives light reflected from the face [0096], and generates bioanalysis information [0075]+[0092].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Chen to generate bioanalysis information, as taught by Satoi, because this allows for a more comfortable method for measuring vital signs at home, thereby improving the ability to care for a patient, as recognized by Satoi [0005].
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Chen further teaches wherein the reflection light received by the light-receiving element is the light emitted to a part of the user face [0020]+[0033].
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Satoi as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lee et al (U.S PGPub 2018/0199838 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. The combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to execute a bioanalysis process based on the stored learning model.
Lee teaches a method for optical heart tracking (Abstract). This system uses a stored learning model to execute a bioanalysis process [0004]-[0005].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a learning model to execute a bioanalysis process, as taught by Lee, because this improves the signal to noise ratio of the process, thereby generating more accurate data, as recognized by Lee [0036].
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Chen fails to explicitly teach the subepidermal reflection-light signals correspond to a plurality of different biological states, and the feature data of the subepidermal reflection-light signals reflect subepidermal states.
Satoi further teaches the subepidermal reflection-light signals correspond to a plurality of different biological states [0088]-[0089], and the feature data of the subepidermal reflection-light signals reflect subepidermal states [0106]+[0112]-[0113].
Satoi is silent regarding wherein the stored learning model includes corresponding data of feature data of subepidermal reflection-light signals.
Lee further teaches a stored learning model which includes corresponding data feature data of subepidermal reflection-light signals [0046]-[0047].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a learning model to execute a bioanalysis process, as taught by Lee, because this improves the signal to noise ratio of the process, thereby generating more accurate data, as recognized by Lee [0036].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Satoi and Lee as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Tzvieli et al. (U.S PGPub 2018/0092574 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of references teaches the invention. The combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to execute an affect analysis process based on the stored learning model, the stored learning model is a model in which feature data that corresponds to a plurality of different affect states is associated, and the feature data includes feature data of facial-expression information and feature data of bioinformation.
Tzvieli teaches a system for determining a physiological response (Abstract). This system execute an affect analysis process based on the stored learning model [0099]+[0101], the stored learning model is a model in which feature data that corresponds to a plurality of different affect states is associated [0098]-[0099]+[0101], and the feature data includes feature data of facial-expression information [0101] and feature data of bioinformation [0098]+[0101] (the heart rate or respiration can be used as the physiological response ROI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system use facial expression information and bioinformation to determine an affect state, as taught by Tzvieli, because using multiple pieces of information increases the accuracy of the determination, as recognized by Tzvieli [0101].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 6-10, and 13-15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-6, and 18-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,929 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the reasons set forth below.
Regarding Claim 1, the Patent teaches an information processing apparatus, comprising: (Claim 1, Col 37, line 26)
a light source configured to emit light to a user face; (Claim 1, Col 37, lines 27-28)
a light-receiving element configured to receive reflection light of the light emitted to the user face; and (Claim 1, Col 37, lines 29-31)
a processor configured to: (Claim 1, Col 37, lines 34-36)
generate both facial-expression analysis information and bioanalysis information based on the reflection light received by the light-receiving element (Claim 1, Col 37, lines 41-51).
Regarding Claim 6, the Patent teaches the invention as claimed. The Patent further teaches wherein the facial-expression analysis information is based on a stored learning model (Claim 3).
Regarding Claim 7, the Patent teaches the invention as claimed. The Patent further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute a facial-expression analysis process based on the stored learning model (Claim 3).
Regarding Claim 8, the Patent teaches the invention as claimed. The Patent further teaches wherein the stored learning model includes corresponding data of facial-expression labels and feature data of skin-surface reflection-light signals, the skin-surface reflection-light signals are associated with skin-surface movements, and the facial-expression labels correspond to a plurality of different facial expressions (Claim 4).
Regarding Claim 9, the Patent teaches the invention as claimed. The Patent further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to execute a bioanalysis process based on the stored learning model (Claim 5).
Regarding Claim 10, the Patent teaches the invention as claimed. The Patent further teaches wherein the stored learning model includes corresponding data of feature data of subepidermal reflection-light signals, the subepidermal reflection-light signals correspond to a plurality of different biological states, and the feature data of the subepidermal reflection-light signals reflect subepidermal states (Claim 6).
Regarding Claim 13, the Patent teaches an information processing method, comprising: (Claim 18, Col 39, line 42)
emitting, by a light source, light to a user face; (Claim 18, Col 39, line 43)
receiving, by a light-receiving element, reflection light based on the light emitted to the user face; (Claim 18, Col 39, lines 44-45)
generating, by a processor, both facial-expression analysis information and bioanalysis information based on the reflection light received by the light-receiving element (Claim 18, Col 39-40, lines 46-23).
Regarding Claim 14, the Patent teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon, computer executable instructions, which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to execute operations, the operations comprising: (Claim 19, Col 40, lines 24-27)
emitting light to a user face; receiving reflection light based on the light emitted to the user face; (Claim 19, Col 40, line 28)
generating both facial-expression analysis information and bioanalysis information based on the reflection light (Claim 19, Col 40, lines 31-46).
Regarding Claim 15, the Patent teaches the invention as claimed. The Patent further teaches wherein the reflection light received by the light-receiving element is the light emitted to a part of the user face (Claim 1, Col 37, lines 30-31).
Claims 2-5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,929 B2 in view of Chen et al.
Regarding Claim 2, the Patent teaches the invention substantially as claimed. The Patent fails to explicitly teach a plurality of light sources that include the light source, and a plurality of light-receiving elements that include the light-receiving element
Chen teaches a system for detecting facial expressions (Abstract). This system includes a plurality of light sources that include the light source (Fig. 2, 150) [0033]+[0039], and
a plurality of light-receiving elements that include the light-receiving element (Fig. 2, 150) [0033]+[0039].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the light emitting section and the light receiving section of the Patent with a plurality of light sources and light receiving elements, as taught by Chen, as the substitution for one known method of emitting and receiving light with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using a plurality of sources/receiving elements are reasonably predictable.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. The Patent fails to explicitly teach wherein each of the plurality of the light-receiving elements is a same type of sensor.
Chen further teaches wherein each of the plurality of the light-receiving elements is a same type of sensor (Fig. 2, 150) [0033] (each of the light receiving elements can be a photodetector (light sensor)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the plurality of light receiving elements with light receiving elements that are all the same sensor, as taught by Chen, as the substitution for one known sensor configuration with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using all the same sensor are reasonably predictable.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. The Patent fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of the light-receiving elements are placed on different positions on the user face.
Chen further teaches wherein the plurality of the light-receiving elements are placed on different positions on the user face (Fig. 2, 150) [0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the location of the light receiving elements with locations so that they are in different positions on the user face, as taught by Chen, as the substitution for one known sensor configuration with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using all the sensors in different positions are reasonably predictable.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. The Patent fails to explicitly teach wherein at least one of the plurality of light-receiving elements is positioned on the glabella of the user face, near the eyes of the user face, or on the cheeks of the user face.
Chen further teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of light-receiving elements is positioned on the glabella of the user face, near the eyes of the user face, or on the cheeks of the user face (Fig. 2, 150)+ (Fig. 5, 520) [0033] (the light receiving elements are near the eyes and would be on the cheeks).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the location of the light receiving elements with locations so that they are in near the eyes, as taught by Chen, as the substitution for one known sensor configuration with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using the sensors near the eyes are reasonably predictable.
Claim 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,929 B2 in view of Tzvieli et al.
Regarding Claim 11, the Patent teaches the invention. The Patent fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to execute an affect analysis process based on the stored learning model, the stored learning model is a model in which feature data that corresponds to a plurality of different affect states is associated, and the feature data includes feature data of facial-expression information and feature data of bioinformation.
Tzvieli teaches a system for determining a physiological response (Abstract). This system execute an affect analysis process based on the stored learning model [0099]+[0101], the stored learning model is a model in which feature data that corresponds to a plurality of different affect states is associated [0098]-[0099]+[0101], and the feature data includes feature data of facial-expression information [0101] and feature data of bioinformation [0098]+[0101] (the heart rate or respiration can be used as the physiological response ROI).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Patent to use facial expression information and bioinformation to determine an affect state, as taught by Tzvieli, because using multiple pieces of information increases the accuracy of the determination, as recognized by Tzvieli [0101].
Claim 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,169,929 B2 in view of Satoi et al.
Regarding Claim 12, the Patent teaches the invention substantially as claimed. The Patent fails to explicitly teach wherein the processor is further configured to generate the bioanalysis information based on a signal component that reflects periodic fluctuations, and the signal component is extracted from the reflection light.
Satoi further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to generate the bioanalysis information based on a signal component that reflects periodic fluctuations [0177]-[0178], and the signal component is extracted from the reflection light [0177].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Patent to generate bioanalysis information, as taught by Satoi, because this allows for a more comfortable method for measuring vital signs at home, thereby improving the ability to care for a patient, as recognized by Satoi [0005].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sohn et al. (U.S PGPub 2014/0022370 A1), which teaches using a learned model for determining facial expressions.
Silawan et al. (U.S PGPub 2017/0105662 A1), which uses both physiological and non-physiological information to determine a person’s emotion.
Zhang et al. (U.S PGPub 2020/0156648 A1), which extracts both facial expression information and bioinformation from reflected light.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D MATTSON whose telephone number is (408)918-7613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM PST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/SEAN D MATTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights