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 .
Status of Claims
This Final Office Action is in response to the Amendment and Remarks filed 03/27/2026. Claims 1 and 8-10 are amended. Claims 2 and 6-7 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3-5 and 8-10 are currently pending and considered herein.
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, 3-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 9 recites, wherein the abstract elements are not emboldened:
An apparatus configured to notify a need for sleep care, the apparatus comprising: a non-transitory memory storage storing processor-executable instructions; and at least one processor coupled to the memory to receive the processor-executable instructions, wherein, upon execution of the processor executable instructions, the at least one processor: acquiring video frame sequences by the apparatus, wherein the video frame sequences are obtained by a short-wave infrared imaging device; detecting a target person in the video frame sequences; analyzing a moisture content level change of the target person in the video frame sequences, comprising: detecting a reduction in reflected infrared light intensity at a specific infrared wavelength due to water absorption characteristics of urine or sweat in the video frame sequences; converting each frame of the video frame sequences into a grayscale image; obtaining a grayscale value of each pixel corresponding to the target person at an initial time and after a preset time period; determining that the target person is in a sweating or in a urine-wet state based on the moisture content level change by: determining that a pixel is a pixel with a higher moisture content level in a case that a difference between the grayscale value at the initial time and the grayscale value after the preset time period is greater than or equal to a preset grayscale change threshold; identifying a sheet-like region formed by pixels determined to have the higher moisture content level; classifying the state as the sweating state in response the sheet-like region identified being located in hands, head, or back of the target person; and classifying the state as the urine-wet state in response the sheet-like region identified being located in legs of the target person; determining a first quantity of pixels of each frame of the video frame sequences corresponding to the sheet-like region; calculating a ratio of the first quantity of pixels to a total quantity of pixels of the target person of the frame; determining whether the ratio exceeds a preset ratio threshold; and sending a notification to an electronic device indicating care is needed in response to the ratio been determined exceeding the preset ratio threshold.
Independent claims 1 and 10 recite substantially similar limitations. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of collecting user information including video frames of the target person, analyzing the information to determine if the person is sweating or urine-wet, and generating a notification of care based on the analyses.
The limitations of “detecting a target person in the video frame sequences; analyzing a moisture content level change of the target person in the video frame sequences, comprising: detecting a reduction in reflected infrared light intensity at a specific infrared wavelength due to water absorption characteristics of urine or sweat in the video frame sequences; obtaining a grayscale value of each pixel corresponding to the target person at an initial time and after a preset time period; determining that the target person is in a sweating or in a urine-wet state based on the moisture content level change by: determining that a pixel is a pixel with a higher moisture content level in a case that a difference between the grayscale value at the initial time and the grayscale value after the preset time period is greater than or equal to a preset grayscale change threshold; identifying a sheet-like region formed by pixels determined to have the higher moisture content level; classifying the state as the sweating state in response the sheet-like region identified being located in hands, head, or back of the target person; and classifying the state as the urine-wet state in response the sheet-like region identified being located in legs of the target person; determining a first quantity of pixels of each frame of the video frame sequences corresponding to the sheet-like region; calculating a ratio of the first quantity of pixels to a total quantity of pixels of the target person of the frame; determining whether the ratio exceeds a preset ratio threshold; and indicating care is needed in response to the ratio been determined exceeding the preset ratio threshold,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea that covers performance of the limitation as organizing human activity. For example, but for the generic computer system including “an apparatus,” “a non-transitory memory storage storing processor-executable instructions” a “processor coupled to the memory to receive the processor-executable instructions,” “an electronic device,” “acquiring video frame sequences by the apparatus, wherein the video frame sequences are obtained by a short-wave infrared imaging device,” “converting each frame of the video frame sequences into a grayscale image,” and “sending a notification to an electronic device,” analyzing patient video data and determining if care is required based on change in pixelation in areas of or around the patient, in the context of this claim, is an abstract idea that covers performance of the limitation as organizing human activity including following rules or instructions. The claim recites as a whole a method of organizing human activity because the limitations include a method that allows users to access patient data, analyze the data and determine whether certain conditions are met based on the analyses (whether sweating or urine-wet and to send an alert for care). This is a method of managing interactions between people. The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer components does not take the claims out of the method of organizing human interactions grouping. The additional limitations amount to computer methods for further implementing the abstract idea of organizing human activity. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claims also recited an abstract idea including mental processes. But for the generic recitation of “an apparatus,” “a non-transitory memory storage storing processor-executable instructions” a “processor coupled to the memory to receive the processor-executable instructions,” “an electronic device,” “acquiring video frame sequences by the apparatus, wherein the video frame sequences are obtained by a short-wave infrared imaging device,” “converting each frame of the video frame sequences into a grayscale image,” and “sending a notification to an electronic device,”, nothing in the claims is precluded from being performed in the mind. For example, a physician can observe the patient data images and analyze them over time to determine if there is a need for care or not based on the analyses. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of the generic “apparatus,” “non-transitory memory storage storing processor-executable instructions,” “processor coupled to the memory to receive the processor-executable instructions,” “electronic device,” “acquiring video frame sequences by the apparatus, wherein the video frame sequences are obtained by a short-wave infrared imaging device,” “converting each frame of the video frame sequences into a grayscale image,” and “sending a notification to an electronic device.” The computer and/or devices and functions in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor/server/storage/display performing a generic computer function of receiving inputs, analyzing the inputs, and displaying selected information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The limitations seem to monopolize the abstract idea of patient analysis and care alerts based on observation and general techniques between a clinician and her patient. Furthermore, there is no clear improvement to the underlying computer technology in the claim. The claim is thus directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “an apparatus,” “a non-transitory memory storage storing processor-executable instructions,” a “processor coupled to the memory to receive the processor-executable instructions,” “an electronic device,” “acquiring video frame sequences by the apparatus, wherein the video frame sequences are obtained by a short-wave infrared imaging device,” “converting each frame of the video frame sequences into a grayscale image,” and “sending a notification to an electronic device,” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these limitations provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment.
The dependent claims do not remedy the deficiencies of the independent claims with respect to patent eligible subject matter. The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea. Claims 3-5 further specifies detection methods using an algorithm or model, which are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component and cannot provide an inventive concept. Even in combination, the detection algorithms or models do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Claim 8 describes sleep monitoring and further limits the abstract idea.
Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Free from Prior Art
The following references and nearest applicable prior art include: U.S. 2018/0310812 A1 to Kuriyama, U.S. 2019/0228497 A1 to Muramatsu et al., U.S. 2024/0350099 A1 to Lane et al., U.S. 2022/0142397 A1 to Fujita et al., U.S. 2018/0365499 A1 to Johnson et al., and especially U.S. 2023/0214970 A1 to Koide et al., at e.g., Paras. [0095]-[0100] (“The likelihood map image is an image color-coded according to the likelihoods of pixels and relatively shows which pixel has a higher likelihood or a lower likelihood […] A color map image of pixels of the highest likelihood of a sweat droplet shown in red, pixels of the lowest likelihood of a sweat droplet in blue, and pixels therebetween expressed in 8-bit depths can be used as a likelihood map image of sweat droplets. Similarly to the case of the skin ridges and skin folds, the likelihood map image of sweat droplets may be displayed in grayscale, a display format with different lightness, and may have depths other than 8 bits.”), [0114] (whiter and darker pixels based on likelihoods of sweat droplets).
However, the prior art fails to disclose, alone or in combination the following limitations from claim 1 (and mirrored in claims 9 and 10):
“Determining that the target person is in a sweating or in a urine-wet state based on the moisture content level change by determining that a pixel is a pixel with a higher moisture content level in a case that a difference between the grayscale value at the initial time and the grayscale value after the preset time period is greater than or equal to a preset grayscale change threshold; identifying a sheet-like region formed by pixels determined to have the higher moisture content level; classifying the state as the sweating state in response the sheet-like region identified being located in hands, head, or back of the target person; and classifying the state as the urine-wet state in response to the sheet-like region identified being located in legs of the target person; determining a first quantity of pixels of each frame of the video frame sequences corresponding to the sheet-like region; and calculating a ratio of the first quantity of pixels to a total quantity of pixels of the target person of the frame.”
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed March 27, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not entirely persuasive. The following explains why:
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to prior art rejections are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 has been withdrawn. The combination of references included piecemeal combinations and used improper hindsight reasoning. The Koide reference is related prior art, but does not disclose all the amended limitations as claimed, alone or in reasonable combination with other prior art references.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to subject matter eligibility are not persuasive. The claims have been addressed with regard to the updated 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection discussed above, and considered under relevant sections of the MPEP. The arguments at pages 9-10 of Applicant’s Remarks are not persuasive. At pages 9-10 the Examiner disagrees that there is not an abstract idea, that there is any practical application thereof or there is a technological improvement in the claims. The Examiner disagrees there is significantly more than the abstract idea. At pages 9-10 the Examiner disagrees that the broadly recited claims would not permit a physician to observe video images of a patient at one time and then observe a darkening of pixels at another time as claimed. The organizing human activity includes following rules or instructions for a care procedure when a moisture level is observed on a patient. That it may be tedious or laborious to perform analyses manually is not of consequence in the eligibility analysis. The current claims are also included as a mental process(es) for the judicial exception as well as organizing human activity. A physician would use the claimed additional elements as insignificant extra-solution activity to perform the abstract idea.
The inclusion of a short-wave infrared imaging device and converting grayscale values is leveraged as a computer tool to employ the abstract idea. The Office Action does not state these are well-understood, routine or conventional, but that they comprise generic instructions and computer tools to apply the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. For at least these reasons and those stated above, the claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM T. MONTICELLO whose telephone number is (313)446-4871. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th; 08:30-18:30 EST.
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, FONYA LONG can be reached at (571) 270-5096. 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.
/WILLIAM T. MONTICELLO/ Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/FONYA M LONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights