CTNF 19/215,178 CTNF 96917 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites acquiring thermal imaging data using a thermal imaging camera. The limitation of acquiring thermal imaging data as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a thermal imaging camera nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “thermal camera” language, acquiring thermal imaging data in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually observing a target. Similarly, the limitation of processing the thermal imaging data with a computer system, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “computer system” language, “processing the thermal imaging data” in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally thinking about the data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the method claim recites an abstract idea that may be computed within the mind as broadly as claimed. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – using a processor to perform the imaging and processing steps. The processor in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does 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 element of using a processor to perform both the imaging and processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim (s) 1, 2, 6, 7, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Prokoski (US 20100191124 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Prokoski teaches an intraoperative thermal imaging system, comprising: a thermal camera ([0081] images of the human body by using subsurface anatomical landmarks derived from three-dimensional infrared imaging. Simultaneous imaging of all or some portion of the body with calibrated infrared and range sensors yields a true metric 3D surface thermal model of any body area within the fields of view of both sensors) one or more peripheral devices ([0536] Local Workstation 641 includes a display monitor, communications with SCP, and two peripheral devices) and a computer system comprising a processor and a memory ([0498] The system processor determines difference between two standardized images from the same sensor modality of the same subject) receive thermal imaging data from the thermal camera ([0096] Once calibration is completed the IR camera coordinates may be related to the 3D-visual camera coordinates and 3D coordinates assigned to each jointly visible point of the IR scene) receive behavioral data from the one or more peripheral devices ([0485] RPAS induces physiological and behavioral responses by stimulus events and uses quantitative sensors data for automated correlation against pre-defined profiles. Precise measurements of induced reflex, reaction, and response behaviors requires analysis of standardized and doubly standardized 3D/IR image sequences) and generate a functional map indicative of neuronal activity in a subject using the thermal imaging data and the behavioral data ([0075] a method for assessing a psychological state of a person by generating a sequence of body maps of the person over an interval of time, processing the sequence to detect localized changes in temperature, and correlating detected localized changes with one or more events during the time interval; [0489] Brain mapping techniques used in surgery to correct functional and mood disorders suggests a possible noninvasive approach to detecting hostile intent; [0490] Vasoactivity in specific areas of the brain is imaged using PET scanners. This technique is routinely used to find active function-specific locations within the brain). Regarding claim 2, Prokoski teaches the one or more peripheral devices comprise at least one of a monitor, a speaker, a microphone, or a haptic device ([0536] Local Workstation 641 includes a display monitor, communications with SCP, and two peripheral devices; the stylus 611 and transponder 621. Stylus is used on the display and transponder is used on the patient) Regarding claim 6, Prokoski teaches the microphone comprises a microphone array ([0535] Transducer is a digital stethoscope, microphone, or ultrasound device that provides respiration and cardiac time signature; [0555] sensor array) Regarding claim 7, Prokoski teaches the computer system is configured to receive audio data recorded by the microphone array and to isolate speech from a subject in the audio data ([0075] the localized change is correlated in time with speech or a facial expression of the person) Regarding claim 12, Prokoski teaches the computer system is configured to generate and provide task cues to a user, the task cues defining a functional task for the user to perform ([0482] predict behavior of an individual based on a history of his behaviors as remembered by persons who happened to observe the individual performing everyday tasks. This indirect version of PAS provides a framework for "reconstructing" the personality that underlies behavior observed by one or more independent persons over time). Regarding claim 14, Prokoski teaches the one or more peripheral devices comprise a speaker and the task cues comprise an auditory cue ([0461] The automated access control system is activated by a person speaking his name) Regarding claim 15, Prokoski teaches the one or more peripheral devices comprise a display and the task cues comprise a visual cue ([0511] Stimuli can include questionnaire, displays on monitor including subliminal video) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 3-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prokoski as applied to claim s 2 and 12 above, and further in view of Ganguly . Regarding claim 3, Prokoski fails to teach the haptic device is a haptic glove. However, Ganguly teaches a haptic glove ([0102] haptic gloves that monitor vibration) Prokoski and Ganguly are considered analogous because both disclose systems that monitor patient feedback while performing a task. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the pending application to include a haptic glove in order to measure tremor and vibrate or beep to give feedback (Ganguly [0102]) Regarding claim 4, Prokoski fails to teach the computer system is configured to receive behavioral data from the haptic glove and compute therefrom a motion trajectory of the haptic glove. However, Ganguly teaches the computer system is configured to receive behavioral data from the haptic glove and compute therefrom a motion trajectory of the haptic glove ([0109] Assessment of efficacy may involve use of motion capture or motion sensors; [0102] In some embodiments, training and feedback hardware may be integrated into the electrode device. Position/motion sensors may be built into a wrist band for example). Prokoski and Ganguly are considered analogous because both disclose systems that monitor patient feedback while performing a task. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the pending application to include use said haptic glove for motion capture in order to look at gait, tracking of smoothness and responsiveness of finger motion (Ganguly [0109]) Regarding claim 5, Prokoski fails to teach the computer system is configured to perform quality assurance on functional task performance of a subject wearing the haptic glove. However, Ganguly teaches the computer system is configured to perform quality assurance on functional task performance of a subject wearing the haptic glove ([0012] a performance indicator may include both objective and subjective indicators). Prokoski and Ganguly are considered analogous because both disclose systems that monitor patient feedback while performing a task. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the pending application to utilize a performance indicator on the sensors including the haptic glove in order to look at gait, tracking of smoothness and responsiveness of finger motion (Ganguly [0109]) Regarding claim 13, Prokoski fails to teach the one or more peripheral devices comprise a haptic glove and the task cues comprise a vibratory stimulus generated by the haptic glove. However, Ganguly teaches the one or more peripheral devices comprise a haptic glove and the task cues comprise a vibratory stimulus generated by the haptic glove ([0101] additional components (lights, sounds, images, on screen indicators, vibration) may provide additional cues to reduce cognitive burden, similar to the haptic feedback in the glove) Prokoski and Ganguly are considered analogous because both disclose systems that monitor patient feedback while performing a task. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the pending application to utilize vibrating haptic glove in order to enhance performance during training/game playing include visual, vibration and sound on a mobile phone/tablet (Ganguly [0101]) 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prokoski as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Elchik (US 20180061256 A1) . Regarding claim 8, Prokoski fails to teach the computer system is configured to convert the isolated speech to text data and to compare the text data to a list of expected responses corresponding to a functional task. However, Elchik teaches the computer system is configured to convert the isolated speech to text data and to compare the text data to a list of expected responses corresponding to a functional task ([0057] a microphone will receive the response and the system will process the response using speech-to-text recognition to determine whether the response matches an expected response) Prokoski and Elchik are considered analogous because both disclose systems that monitor subjects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the pending application to use a speech to text system to verify that the subject is behaving as expected so that a system can output the correct response if needed (Elchik [0057]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prokoski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sheu (US 20060178582 A1) . Regarding claim 9, Prokoski fails to teach a base unit comprising a mobile cart, wherein the thermal camera and the one or more peripheral devices are coupled to the base unit. However, Sheu teaches a base unit comprising a mobile cart, wherein the thermal camera and the one or more peripheral devices are coupled to the base unit ([0016] a thermal image-detecting unit 1, a visible light image-detecting unit 2, a processing unit 3 and a display unit 4, and all the aforementioned components can be mounted on a utility cart 5 for being conveniently moved) Prokoski and Sheu are considered analogous because both disclose temperature monitorization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the pending application to mount the features to a base comprising a cart so they can be conveniently moved (Sheu [0016]). Regarding claim 10, Prokoski fails to teach the thermal camera is coupled to the base unit via a moveable support coupled on one end to the base unit and on its other end to the thermal camera. However, Sheu teaches the thermal camera is coupled to the base unit via a moveable support coupled on one end to the base unit and on its other end to the thermal camera ([0016] a thermal image-detecting unit 1, a visible light image-detecting unit 2, a processing unit 3 and a display unit 4, and all the aforementioned components can be mounted on a utility cart 5 for being conveniently moved) Prokoski and Sheu are considered analogous because both disclose temperature monitorization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the pending application to mount the features to a base comprising a cart so they can be conveniently moved (Sheu [0016]). Regarding claim 11, Prokoski fails to teach the computer system is housed within the base unit. However, Sheu teaches the computer system is housed within the base unit ([0016] a thermal image-detecting unit 1, a visible light image-detecting unit 2, a processing unit 3 and a display unit 4, and all the aforementioned components can be mounted on a utility cart 5 for being conveniently moved) Prokoski and Sheu are considered analogous because both disclose temperature monitorization devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the pending application to mount the features to a base comprising a cart so they can be conveniently moved (Sheu [0016]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIEL VICTOR POPESCU whose telephone number is (571)272-7065. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM. 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, Anne Kozak can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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. /GABRIEL VICTOR POPESCU/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797 /SERKAN AKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/215,178 Page 2 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/215,178 Page 3 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/215,178 Page 4 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/215,178 Page 5 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/215,178 Page 6 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/215,178 Page 7 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/215,178 Page 8 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/215,178 Page 9 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/215,178 Page 10 Art Unit: 3797
Prosecution Insights