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 of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a predetermined number of pluses” should be changed to “a predetermined number of pulses” to correct the misspelling of “pulses”. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are:
“an imaging unit configured to image a living body to capture an image as time-series data” in claims 1-8 and 10-14.
“a time-series signal obtaining unit configured to obtain a time-series biological signal indicating a temporal variation in a biological signal” in claims 1-8 and 10-14.
“a biological-information calculating unit configured to extract a pulse signal by dividing the time-series biological signal at a predetermined time based on a cycle of a biological phenomenon of the living body” in claims 1-8 and 10-14.
“a pulse determining unit configured to determine whether the determination index satisfies a predetermined determination condition” in claims 1-8 and 10-14.
“a disturbance measuring unit configured to obtain disturbance information indicating an amount of spatial variation in the measurement device” in claim 13.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites “a displacement between the regions of interest included in the image captured at the time points different from each other” (emphasis added). Claim 1 does not explicitly recite any time points or regions of interest. Therefore, the scope of claim 4 is ambiguous because “the regions of interest” and “the time points” lack a sufficient antecedent basis. However, if claim 4 were amended to depend from claim 2, the lack of antecedent basis would be resolved. Accordingly, for purposes of applying prior art, claim 4 is interpreted as depending from claim 2.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 20160338603 to Nakata et al. (hereinafter “Nakata”)
Regarding claim 1, Nakata teaches a measurement device comprising:
an imaging unit (Nakata, par. 36, “the pulse wave detection device 10 includes a camera 11,”) configured to image a living body to capture an image as time-series data (Nakata, par. 13, “The process includes: acquiring an image; extracting a living body region included in the image; first generating a signal from time series data of a pixel value included in a partial image of the image corresponding to the living body region; calculating a variation index for evaluating a degree of disturbance of a pulse wave included in the signal; and controlling whether to output the signal by using the variation index.”);
a time-series signal obtaining unit (Nakata, par. 36, “processing unit 17”) configured to obtain a time-series biological signal indicating a temporal variation in a biological signal (Nakata, par. 34, “detecting a pulse wave of a subject, that is, fluctuations in volume of blood caused by heartbeat by using an image obtained by photographing a living body of the subject without bringing a measuring instrument into contact with the subject under typical environmental light such as sunlight or indoor light.”), and obtain a determination index temporally associated with the biological signal (Nakata, par. 34, “As part of such pulse wave detection processing, the pulse wave detection device 10 determines quality of a pulse wave signal generated from the image obtained by photographing the living body, and performs signal processing for preventing a poor pulse wave signal from being output.”), the biological signal being a value relating to the living body and calculated from the image (Nakata, par. 34, “detecting a pulse wave of a subject, that is, fluctuations in volume of blood caused by heartbeat by using an image obtained by photographing a living body of the subject”);
a biological-information calculating unit (Nakata, par. 36, “processing unit 17”) configured to extract a pulse signal by dividing the time-series biological signal at a predetermined time (Nakata, par. 67, “As another example of the method for detecting the pulse rate, the detection unit 17 e can calculate the pulse rate by performing peak detection, for example, detection of a zero cross point of a differential waveform on the waveform of the pulse wave signal every time when the generation unit 17 d generates the pulse wave signal. In this case, when the peak of the waveform of the pulse wave signal is detected through peak detection, the detection unit 17 e stores, in an internal memory (not illustrated), a sampling time in which the peak, that is, a local maximum point is detected. Thereafter, when the peak appears, the detection unit 17 e obtains a time difference between the peak and the local maximum point previous to the peak by a predetermined parameter n, and can detect the pulse rate by dividing the time difference by n.”) based on a cycle of a biological phenomenon of the living body (The peaks correspond to physical changes in the structures of the heart.); and
a pulse determining unit (Nakata, par. 36, “processing unit 17”) configured to determine whether the determination index satisfies a predetermined determination condition (Nakata, par. 108, “predetermined threshold TH”), and adopt the pulse signal temporally associated with the determination index satisfying the predetermined determination condition (If the variation index is smaller than the threshold, the pulse wave is not output. If the variation index is larger than the threshold, the pulse wave is not output. See steps S109 and S110 in Figure 11, and pars. 108-109),
wherein the biological-information calculating unit calculates biological information (Nakata, par. 67, “pulse rate”) relating to the living body by using the pulse signal adopted by the pulse determining unit (Nakata, par. 67, “detection unit 17 e can detect the pulse rate from the pulse wave signal generated by the generation unit 17 d”. If the pulse wave includes a variation index smaller than a threshold, a pulse rate (biological information) is output.).
Regarding claim 2, Nakata teaches the measurement device according to claim 1, wherein at time points each indicating a time of capturing of the image with a value of the biological signal calculated (points in time of the pulse wave signal), the value of the biological signal is calculated from a pixel value of a pixel within a region of interest (Step S102 extract a partial image (ROI) of a body region. See Nakata at FIG. 11. The region may be a region of a face. See Nakata at par. 105.) included in the image captured at each of the time points (Nakata, par. 105, “As illustrated in FIG. 11, when the acquisition unit 17 a acquires an image (Step S101), the extraction unit 17 b extracts a predetermined face part, for example, a partial image corresponding to a face region based on the nose of the subject from the image acquired at Step S101 (Step S102). Thereafter, the statistical unit 17 c outputs, to the generation unit 17 d, time series data of the representative value of each pixel included in the partial image of the face region extracted at Step S102 for each of the R component and the G component (Step S103).”).
Regarding claim 8, Nakata teaches the measurement device according to claim 1, wherein the biological-information calculating unit calculates the biological information based on a plurality of pulse signals (The pulse wave comprises individual pulses corresponding to a heartbeat cycle. See Nakata at Fig. 2) satisfying at least one of a predetermined number of [pulses] or more (Nakata, par. 67, “the detection unit 17 e can detect the pulse rate from the spectrum of the pulse wave signal by converting the pulse wave signal of a predetermined time length into a frequency region.” Counting pulses requires ), and a predetermined time (Nakata, par. 67, “the detection unit 17 e can detect the pulse rate from the spectrum of the pulse wave signal by converting the pulse wave signal of a predetermined time length into a frequency region.”).
Claim 9 substantially correspond to claim 1 by reciting a method comprising steps that correspond to the functions of the devices of claim 1 . Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons as provided for claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Nakata teaches the measurement device according to claim 2, further comprising a disturbance measuring unit (Nakata, par. 36, “processing unit 17”) configured to obtain disturbance information indicating an amount of spatial variation in the measurement device (Nakata, “In a case of the distance sensor, the number of times when a distance between the touch panel 13 and the user's face deviates from a predetermined proper distance can be calculated as the variation index.”),
wherein the determination index indicates the amount of spatial variation (Nakata, “In a case of the distance sensor, the number of times when a distance between the touch panel 13 and the user's face deviates from a predetermined proper distance can be calculated as the variation index.”), and
the predetermined determination condition is that the amount of spatial variation is equal to or smaller than a fourth determination threshold (Nakata, “deviates from a predetermined proper distance can be calculated as the variation index.”).
Claim 14 substantially corresponds to claim 8, differing by depending from claim 2. Claim 14 is rejections for the same reasons as provided for claim 2.
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 3, 4, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata in view of U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 20150302158 to Morris et al. (hereinafter “Morris”).
Regarding claim 3, Nakata teaches the measurement device according to claim 2, but does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Morris.
Morris teaches a number of pixels (Morris, par. 74, “total head translation α(t)”) within the region of interest (Morris, par. 74, “a face region”), and the predetermined determination condition is that the number of pixels exceeds a first determination threshold (Morris, par. 74, “A static threshold of twenty percent of the face dimension (length or width in pixels) was used for labeling windows. For example, if a face region is 200×200 pixels, the motion threshold for a ten-second window is set to 400 (0.2×200 pixels×10 sec). If the total head translation α(t) is greater than 400 pixels (over the 10 second window), the window is labeled as motion.” Exceeding the threshold number of pixel translations indicates motion. Not exceeding the threshold means there is no motion of concern.).
Nakata discloses a camera-based pulse wave detection device that determines a pulse wave from an extracted face region in a sequence of images over time and calculating a variation index to evaluate the extent to which the pulse wave may be negatively impacted, such as being the result of the person’s face moving during the time period being evaluated. Thus, Nakata shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to track a body region and avoid outputting the pulse wave in the event a disturbance is detected via an index indicating the disturbance, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, mitigating the effects of disturbance on the output pulse wave. Morris discloses a video-based pulse wave detection system that determines a pulse wave from an extracted face region tracked over time and determining a quality metric based on motion detected from ROI displacement across points in time to mitigate the effects of motion disturbing the integrity of the sensor data. Thus, Morris shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a motion-based quality metric based on image displacement to mitigate negative effects from disturbance on the pulse wave, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, mitigating the effects of disturbance on the output pulse wave.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the displacement test and motion threshold disclosed by Morris to the variation index disclosed by Nakata, to thereby skip outputting the pulse wave in the event a relative displacement of a tracked image region over time exceeds a threshold number of translations. Based on the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such modification according to known methods to yield the predictable results to have the benefit of mitigating disturbances from motion.
Regarding claim 4, Nakata teaches the measurement device according to claim [2], but does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Morris.
Morris teaches wherein the determination index indicates a displacement between the regions of interest (change in coordinate position indicative of disturbance) included in the image (Morris, par. 29, “Region of interest tracking is generally exemplified as face tracking 330 in FIG. 3, in which regions of interest ROI 1, ROI 2 and ROI 3 provide R, G and B signals 332 for each region.”) captured at the time points different from each other (Morris, par. 74, “a ten-second window”), and the predetermined determination condition is that the displacement is equal to or smaller than a second determination threshold (Morris, par. 74, “A static threshold of twenty percent of the face dimension (length or width in pixels) was used for labeling windows. For example, if a face region is 200×200 pixels, the motion threshold for a ten-second window is set to 400 (0.2×200 pixels×10 sec). If the total head translation α(t) is greater than 400 pixels (over the 10 second window), the window is labeled as motion.” If the threshold is exceeded, motion is indicated. If not exceed, i.e., equal to or smaller than the threshold, then the face is not moving or not moving enough. The number of pixels is the amount of displacement.).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 3.
Regarding claim 7, Nakata teaches the measurement device according to claim 1, but does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Morris.
Morris teaches obtain disturbance information indicating an amount of spatial variation in the measurement device (change in coordinate positions of a tracked face correspond to changes on the image sensor), wherein the determination index indicates the amount of spatial variation (amount of motion or displacement), and the predetermined determination condition is that the amount of spatial variation is equal to or smaller than a fourth determination threshold (Morris, par. 74, “A static threshold of twenty percent of the face dimension (length or width in pixels) was used for labeling windows. For example, if a face region is 200×200 pixels, the motion threshold for a ten-second window is set to 400 (0.2×200 pixels×10 sec). If the total head translation α(t) is greater than 400 pixels (over the 10 second window), the window is labeled as motion.” Exceeding the threshold number of pixel translations indicates a living body from detected displacement across frames.)..
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 3.
Claim 10 substantially corresponds to claim 4, differing by depending from claim 2. Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons provided for claim 4.
Claims 5, 6, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakata in view of U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. No. 20190332855 to Taniguchi (hereinafter “Taniguchi”).
Regarding claim 5, Nakata teaches the measurement device according to claim 1, but does not teach that which is explicitly taught by Taniguchi.
Taniguchi teaches a number of motions of the living body per unit time calculated from the image (Taniguchi, par. 45, “the number of blinks per unit time (hereinafter simply referred to as ‘blinking frequency’)”), and the predetermined determination condition is that the number of motions is equal to or smaller than a third determination threshold (Taniguchi, par. 50, “BFmin is the minimum value of blinking frequency in a predetermined period … and BFmax is the maximum value of the blinking frequency during the same period.” A number of motions (blinking frequency) being below the maximum threshold indicates a normal amount of blinking.).
Nakata is analogous to the claimed invention for the reasons provided above. Taniguchi discloses tracking a person across images over time to learn trends based on their physiological behaviour including determining a minimum and maximum blinking frequency. Thus, Taniguchi shows that it was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to track a body region and characterize movement based on a threshold number of blinks per unit time, which is analogous to the claimed invention in that it is pertinent to the problem being solved by the claimed invention, accurately characterizing physiological motion from the image.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add the blinking frequency threshold disclosed by Taniguchi to the variation index disclosed by Nakata, to thereby skip outputting the pulse wave in the event the number of blinks per unit time is too high to output the pulse wave. Based on the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made such modification according to known methods to yield the predictable results to have the benefit of mitigating disturbances from eye motion.
Regarding claim 6, Nakata in view of Tanigushi teaches the measurement device according to claim 5, wherein the number of motions is a number of eye blinks per unit time (Taniguchi, par. 45, “the number of blinks per unit time (hereinafter simply referred to as ‘blinking frequency’)”).
The rationale for obviousness is the same as provided for claim 1,
Claims 11 and 12 substantially correspond to claims 5 and 6, differing by depending from claim 2. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected for the same reasons provided for claims 5 and 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P POTTS whose telephone number is (571)272-6351. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-5pm 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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
/RYAN P POTTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights