www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/953,217
`
`11/19/2020
`
`KENJI NARUMI
`
`083710-3229
`
`6722
`
`Rimon PC - Pansonic Corporation
`8300 Greensboro Dr
`Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`ORTEGA, MARTIN NATHAN
`
`3791
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`01/11/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`USPTOmail@rimonlaw.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-27 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 18-24 and 27 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`[] Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-17 and 25-26 is/are rejected.
`[) Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)( The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)M The drawing(s) filed on 19 November 2020 is/are: a) accepted or b)() objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)(¥) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)() None ofthe:
`b)( Some**
`a) All
`1.@) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20231220
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/953,217
`NARUMIetal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`MARTIN N ORTEGA
`3791
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 16 November 2023.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`underthe first inventorto file provisions of the AIA.
`
`Election/Restrictions
`
`Applicant’s election of Group 1, claims 1-17 and 25-26,in the reply filed on
`
`11/16/2023 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically
`
`point out the supposederrors in the restriction requirement, the election has been
`
`treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01 (a)).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
`(b) CONCLUSION.—Thespecification shall conclude with one or more claimsparticularly 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 claimsparticularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regardsas his invention.
`
`Claims 1-17 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112
`
`(pre-AIA), second paragraph,as being indefinite for failing to particularly point
`
`out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventoror a joint inventor (or
`
`for applications subject to pre-AJA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the
`
`invention.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 3
`
`Regarding claim | and 26, the claimsrecites the limitation “stops outputting
`
`the brain activity” in lines 14 and 8, but are found indefinite. While in the previous
`
`steps there is mention of generating data, there is no mention of outputting data.
`
`Generating data and outputting data are not equivalent. How can data output stop
`
`when there’s no mention ofit starting? Further clarification required.
`
`Claims 2 and 10 recites the limitation “detecting a component included in a
`
`reflected light pulse during a time periodfrom start to end of a decrease of an
`
`intensity of the reflected light pulse”in lines 4-6 and 4-5, but is found indefinite. It
`
`is unclear to the examiner what the applicantis intending to limit by the recitation
`
`in the context of the claim. Further clarification required.
`
`Claim 3 recites the limitation “the first value satisfying a preset condition
`
`during the first time period”in lines 9-10, but is found indefinite. It is unclear how
`
`the limitation is intended to be interpreted and what is being limited in the context
`
`of the claim.It is supposedto be tied to the stopping outputting the brain activity?
`
`If so, the claim mustclearly state that the controller stops outputting the brain
`
`activity in responseto the first value satisfying a preset condition during thefirst
`
`period, as it currently does not.
`
`Claim 10 recites the limitation “prior to a start of a decrease of an intensity
`
`of the reflected light” in line 5, but is found indefinite. It is unclear how the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 4
`
`limitation is intended to be interpreted and whatis being limited in the context of
`
`the claim.
`
`Claim 14 recites the limitation “calculates a second value” and “[determine]
`
`an absolute rate of change in the second value”in lines 3-5, but is indefinite. How
`
`can the rate of change of a single value be determined? Furtherclarification
`
`required.
`
`Claim 17 is found indefinite. Claim 1 teaches that the sensor detects a
`
`change in an environmentthat affects the brain activity. It is unclear how the any
`
`of the sensors recited in claim 17 detect a change in the environmentthat affects
`
`brain activity data. Further clarification is required.
`
`Claim 26 recites method steps but no structural elements configured to
`
`perform the steps. What causes the light source to emit? What causes the image
`
`sensor to output an image signal? What generates brain activity data? What stops
`
`outputting the brain activity data? Further clarification required.
`
`Claimsnotlisted are rejected based on virtue of claim dependency.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
`
`Whoeverinvents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
`matter, or any new and useful improvementthereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
`conditions and requirementsofthistitle.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 5
`
`Claims 1-17 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed
`
`invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole,
`
`considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not
`
`amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim
`
`26 follows.
`
`Regarding claim 26, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including
`
`stopping outputting the brain data. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is
`
`one of the statutory categories of invention
`
`The claim is then analyzed to determine whetherit is directed to any judicial
`
`exception. The step of stopping outputting the brain activity data based on an
`
`imagesignal and/or sensor output signal sets forth a judicial exception. This step
`
`describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation,
`
`evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process,
`
`which is an Abstract Idea.
`
`Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whetherthe claim
`
`recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
`
`application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of
`
`additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a mannerthat
`
`imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 26 recites
`
`stopping the output of brain activity data, which is merely adding insignificant
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 6
`
`extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Stopping the
`
`output of brain activity data does not provide an improvementto the technological
`
`field, the method doesnoteffect a particular treatment or effect a particular change
`
`based on the stopped output of brain activity, nor does the method use a particular
`
`machine to perform the Abstract Idea. Claim 26 does not recite any structural
`
`element configured to perform the methodsteps.
`
`Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or
`
`combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to
`
`significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites
`
`additional steps of emitting light, outputting an image, and generating brain
`
`activity. Emitting light, outputting an image signal based on detectedreflected
`
`light, and generating brain activity data based on an imagesignalis well-
`
`understood, routine and conventionalactivity for those in the field of medical
`
`diagnostics. Further, the emitting, outputting, and generating steps are each recited
`
`at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution
`
`activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea.
`
`Whenrecited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation,
`
`such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-
`
`understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparingactivity
`
`engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore,it
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 7
`
`is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements
`
`such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility
`
`on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134
`
`S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
`
`Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other
`
`meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are
`
`considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements
`
`limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in
`
`concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an
`
`improvementto the technical field. Even when viewedas a combination, the
`
`additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application
`
`of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amountto significantly more
`
`than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject
`
`matter.
`
`Regarding claim 1, the device recited in the claim is generic device
`
`comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The
`
`recited light source and image sensorare generic sensors configured to perform
`
`pre-solutional data gathering activity and the computer system is configured to
`
`perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 8
`
`using a computeras a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the
`
`Abstract Idea into a practical application
`
`The dependent claims 2-17 and 25 also fail to add something more to the
`
`abstract independentclaimsas they generally recite method steps pertaining to data
`
`gathering and processing. The controlling, gathering and calculating steps recited
`
`in the independentclaims maintain a high level of generality even when considered
`
`in combination with the dependent claims.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to
`
`AJA 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 AIAtopre-
`
`AJA)for the rejection will not be considered a new groundof 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 formsthe basis for all
`
`obviousnessrejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`A patent for a claimed invention maynotbe obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed inventionis 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 obviousbefore the effective
`filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinaryskill in the art to which the claimed
`invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the mannerin which the invention was made.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 9
`
`The factual inquiries for establishing a backgroundfor determining
`
`obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
`
`1. Determining the scope and contents of the priorart.
`
`2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claimsat issue.
`
`3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinentart.
`
`4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
`
`obviousness or nonobviousness.
`
`Claims 1-3, 7-11, 16-17, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
`
`being unpatentable over Satoi et al. (US 2017/0231544 A1), referred to as
`
`Satoi hereinafter, in view of Chakravarthyet al. (US 20200029911 A1),
`
`referred to as Chakravarthy hereinafter.
`
`Regarding claim 1 and 26, Satoi teaches a biometric measurement device
`
`(see ABSTRACT) comprising: a light source that emits light onto a head portion of
`
`a user (see para. [0075]), an image sensor(see para. [0009]), a controller that
`
`controls the light source and the imagesensor(see para. [0068]); a signal processor
`
`(see para. [0105]), wherein the controller causes the light source to emit the light
`
`and cause the image sensorto output an imagesignal by causing the image sensor
`
`to detect at least part of reflected light returning from the head portion in response
`
`to emission ofthe light (see para. [0068], an image signal related to blood flow in
`
`the test portion is detected), and the signal processor generates brain activity data
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 10
`
`indicating a state of a brain of the user based on the image signal (see para. [0105-
`
`106,0113], the calculation circuit/signal processor generates biological
`
`information). Satoi further teaches that brain activity is affected based on the image
`
`signal resulting from the patient position in respect to the current image area,
`
`distance from the imagesensor, angle at which the image sensoris from the sensor
`
`region, and if the user is moving during image acquisition, indicating a change in
`
`environment, such as light absorption/reflection of the area the user has moved
`
`from, surrounding the user with respect to the biometric measurement device (see
`
`para. [0123-134]).
`
`Satoi fails to teach wherein the signal processor stops outputting the brain
`
`activity based onat least one selected from the group consisting of the image
`
`signal and a sensor signal output from a sensorthat detects a change in an
`
`environment surrounding the user, the change affecting the brain activity data.
`
`Chakravarthy teaches a method for determining signal quality in a biometric
`
`monitoring device based on the acquired signals (see abstract) wherein
`
`determination of signal quality of the acquired signals based on one or morefactors
`
`including, detection of excessive patient movement, results in the measurements
`
`output being paused/stopped(see para. [0061]).
`
`It would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Satoi, such that the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page11
`
`brain activity data outputted is stopped based on sensorsignal output detecting a
`
`change, as taught by Chakravarthy, because Satoi requires detecting biological
`
`information over time until a commandto stop detection is received, but fails to
`
`provide detail. Chakravarthy teaches that detection can be stopped due to poor
`
`signal quality based on additional factors, including, excessive patient movement.
`
`Regarding claim 2, Satoi teaches wherein the light is a light pulse (see para.
`
`[0090]) and the controller causes the image sensor to output as the imagesignal
`
`that is obtained by detecting a componentincludedin reflected light pulse during a
`
`time period from start to end of a decrease of an intensity of the reflected light
`
`pulse, the reflected light pulse returning from the head portion in response to
`
`emission of the light pulse (see para. [0045,0056,0058,0096,0129], an imagesignal
`
`representing the brain blood flow(first signal) is obtained by detecting a surface of
`
`the user (component) and during the measurementperiod (start and end) the
`
`intensity of reflected light will increase and/or decrease based on the
`
`position/distance of the user).
`
`Regarding claim 3, Satoi teaches wherein the controller causes the light
`
`source to repeatedly emit the light during a specific time period and causes the
`
`imagesensorto repeatedly output the image signal during the specific time period
`
`(see para. [0009,0056,0115], the user is irradiated by pulsed/repeated light during a
`
`measurementperiod and continuously measures biological information based on
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 12
`
`the image signal) and the signal processor calculates a first value based on the
`
`image signal (see para. [0115-120], the signal processor 200 calculates the
`
`movement(first value), such as distance, angle, and/or planar movement, of the
`
`test portion, based on the imagesignal, that directly affect the quality of measuring
`
`brain activity).
`
`Satoi fails to teach wherein the signal processor stops outputting the brain
`
`activity data during a first time period of the specific time period,the first
`
`value/movementofthe test portion satisfying a preset condition during thefirst
`
`time period.
`
`Chakravarthy teaches a method for determining signal quality in a biometric
`
`monitoring device, during a specific time period, based on the acquired signals (see
`
`abstract) wherein determination of signal quality of the acquired signals is based
`
`on one or morefactors including, detection of excessive patient movement,
`
`resulting in the measurements output being paused/stopped duringafirst duration
`
`of time (see para. [0061]).
`
`It would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Satoi, such that the
`
`brain activity data outputted is stopped duringa first time period basedonthefirst
`
`factor/value satisfying a preset condition, as taught by Chakravarthy, because Satoi
`
`requires detecting biological information over time until a commandto stop
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 13
`
`detection is received, but fails to provide detail. Chakravarthy teachesthat
`
`detection can be stopped duringafirst time period due to poorsignal quality based
`
`on additional factors, including, excessive patient movement.
`
`Regrading claim 7, Satoi-Chakravarthy teaches wherein the signal
`
`processorfurther stop outputting the brain activity data during at least a time
`
`period selected from the group consisting of a second time periodpriorto a start of
`
`the first time period (the device of Satoi-Chakravarthy teaches continuously
`
`measuring biological information, therefore can determine poorsignal quality and
`
`stop outputting brain activity before a first time, that being a secondtime period)
`
`and a third time period subsequent to an endof the second time period (see para.
`
`[0064] of Chakravarthy, when signal quality is deemedpoorfor a time period (in
`
`this case second) then the process continues monitoring for an additional time
`
`period (in this case third) to determine if the signal quality is still poor).
`
`It would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Satoi-Chakravarthy,
`
`such that no data is outputted during a third time period, as taught by
`
`Chakravarthy, to aid in determining whether the signal quality has improved or
`
`requires for the user to be alerted and take further action (see para. [0063] of
`
`Chakravarthy).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 14
`
`Regarding claim 8, sections of Satoi-Chakravarthy, cited above,fail to
`
`teach wherein the third time period is longer than the second time period. The
`
`length of the third time periodis not specifically disclosed which suggests it is
`
`subject to optimization based on the desired performance. As such, the length of
`
`the third timer period is a results-effective variable that would have been optimized
`
`through routine experimentation based on the desired performance. It would have
`
`been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
`
`effectively filed to select the length of the third time period, so as to obtain the
`
`desired performance.
`
`Regarding claim 9, Satoi teaches wherein a frequencyof calculation the
`
`first value is higher than or equal to a frequency of generating the brain activity
`
`data (see para. [0125,0128,0131], the signal processor calculates the movementof
`
`the user between consecutive frames and then detects the brain activity when
`
`parameters have been optimized and/or no movementofthe user has occurred).
`
`Regarding claim 10, Satoi-Chakravarthy teaches wherein the lightis a light
`
`pulse (see para. [0090] of Satoi) and the controller causes the image sensorto
`
`output as the image signal a second image signalthat is obtained by detecting a
`
`component includedin a reflected light pulse, the reflected light pulse returning
`
`from the head portion in response to emission ofthe light pulse (see para.
`
`[0045 ,0056,0058,0096,0115, 0129] of Satoi, an image signal representing the brain
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 15
`
`blood flow(first signal) is obtained by detecting a surface of the user (component)
`
`and the movement(secondsignal), such as distance, angle, and/or planar
`
`movement, of the test portion is obtained prior to an increase and/or decrease of
`
`intensity of the reflected light pulse from the user), and the signal processor stops
`
`outputting the brain activity based on the second signal(as stated in the rejection of
`
`claim 1).
`
`Regarding claim 11, sections of Satoi-Chakravarthy, cited above, teach
`
`wherein the signal processor calculates, based on the detection of movementof the
`
`user, a displacementportion of the head portion (see para. [0137,0169] of Satoi,
`
`the signal processor calculates the displacement from the normal direction
`
`(reference position) of the head portion of the user) and stops outputting the brain
`
`activity when the absolute value of the displacementor an absolute value of the
`
`motion speed exceeds a threshold (see para. [0061] of Chakravarthy, stops during
`
`excessive (threshold) movement(displacement) from the user). The absolute value
`
`of the displacement and threshold are not specifically disclosed which suggests it is
`
`subject to optimization based on the desired performance. As such, the absolute
`
`value of the displacement and threshold are results-effective variables that would
`
`have been optimized through routine experimentation based on the desired
`
`performance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 16
`
`time the invention waseffectively filed to select the absolute value of displacement
`
`and threshold, so as to obtain the desired performance.
`
`Regarding claim 16, Satoi-Chakravarthy teaches wherein the sensoris an
`
`illuminancesensorprovided in the environment surrounding the user(see figs. 1b,
`
`3, 15a-b, and 18 of Satoi, biological information detection device 100 comprise
`
`luminancesensor 140).
`
`Regarding claim 17, Satoi-Chakravarthy teach wherein the sensor includes
`
`a speed sensorinstalled in a vehicle to be driven by the(see figs. 1b, 3, 15a-b, and
`
`18 of Satoi, the device can be mounted ona car(see fig. 18) and connect with the
`
`navigation system ofthe car (see para. [0216], from which speed from the
`
`system/sensor can be deduced as the distance and time is known).
`
`Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Satoi et al. (US 2017/0231544 A1) in view of Chakravarthyet al. (US
`
`20200029911 A1), as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Pendersetal.
`
`(US 20150265217 A1), referred to as Penders hereinafter.
`
`Regarding claims 4-6, Satoi-Chakravarthy fails to teach wherein the signal
`
`processoroutputs, during the first time period, the following: a signal indicating
`
`that the brain activity remains invalid, data identical to the brain activity data that
`
`is generated prior to the first time period, and data that is obtained by interpolating
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 17
`
`betweenthe brain activity data generated priorto the first time period and the brain
`
`activity data generated subsequentto the first time period.
`
`Penders teaches a method anddevice for processing biological data of a user
`
`and further determine quality metrics, such as noise and/or artifacts (see para.
`
`[0070-72]. Based on the determination of poor signal quality, portions of the
`
`physiological data can be replaced and or concealed by outputting, a null/invalid
`
`signal, previously measured data, and interpolated data (see para. [0072,0074]).
`
`It would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Satoi-Chakravarthy,
`
`such that the signal outputs an invalid signal, previously measured data, and/or
`
`interpolated data, as taught by Penders, to aid accounting for, processing,
`
`determining, and removing unacceptable, noise and/orartifact data from the
`
`physiological data (see para. [0004,0073]).
`
`Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Satoi et al. (US 2017/0231544 A1) in view of Chakravarthyet al. (US
`
`20200029911 A1), as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Suehira (US
`
`20140247426 Al).
`
`Regarding claim 12, sections of Satoi-Chakravarthy, cited above, teach
`
`wherein the signal processor calculates, based on the second signal, a luminance of
`
`the head portion or changerate in the luminance of the head portion (see para.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 18
`
`[0045 ,0054,0119], the signal processor calculates the intensity of reflected
`
`light/luminanceor changerate of light on the target area (head) of the user based
`
`on user movement/position). Satoi-Chakravarthy fails to teach stops outputting the
`
`brain activity data when an absolute value of the luminanceor an absolute value of
`
`the change rate exceedsa threshold. Chakravarthy teaches output data can be
`
`pausedbased on oneor morefactors.
`
`Suehira teach an tissue imaging device (see ABSTRACTandpara. [0001]),
`
`wherein the processor is configured to determine poorsignal quality when the
`
`quantity of light detected by the detector is not within a predeterminedrange, stop
`
`the acquisition of data, and return to an initial position to continue to monitor (see
`
`para. [0191-193]). It would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art at
`
`the time the invention waseffectively filed to have modified the device of Sato1-
`
`Chakravarthy, such that when a value of the luminanceis not with a threshold
`
`(exceeds or under) data output is stopper, as taught by Suehira, because
`
`Chakravarthy teaches that other factors can result in poor signal quality to measure
`
`biometric information, but fails to disclose details. Suehira teaches that a value of
`
`luminance detected exceeding a threshold results in an error/poor quality and
`
`cannot correctly measure the target region (see para. [0191)]).
`
`The absolute value of the luminanceandthreshold are not specifically
`
`disclosed which suggests it is subject to optimization based on the desired
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 19
`
`performance. Assuch, the absolute value of the luminanceandthreshold are
`
`results-effective variables that would have been optimized through routine
`
`experimentation based on the desired performance. It would have been obviousto
`
`one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention waseffectively filed to
`
`select the absolute value of luminance and threshold, so as to obtain the desired
`
`performance.
`
`Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Satoi et al. (US 2017/0231544 A1) in view of Chakravarthyet al. (US
`
`20200029911 A1), as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Shioiet al.
`
`(US 20090030295 A1), referred to as Shioi hereinafter.
`
`Regarding claim 13, Satoi-Chakravarthy teach wherein the signal processor
`
`calculates an area of a specific region in the head portion based on the second
`
`signal (see para. [0120,0137], target area is determine based on user
`
`movement/position).
`
`Satoi-Chakravarthy fails to teach wherein the signal processorfails to output
`
`the brain activity data if the area is smaller than a threshold.
`
`Shioi teaches a device for measuring biological information using infrared
`
`light (see ABSTRACT), wherein the useris notified of poor signal quality/error
`
`whenthe target area is smaller than a threshold (see para. [0163-164]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 20
`
`It would have been obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Satoi-Chakravarthy,
`
`such that when a value of the luminanceis not with a threshold (exceeds or under)
`
`data output is stopper, as taught by Shioi, because Chakravarthy teaches that other
`
`factors can result in poor signal quality to measure biometric information, butfails
`
`to disclose details. Shioi teaches that a target area smaller than a threshold
`
`indicates an error/poor quality and cannotcorrectly detect the target region (see
`
`para. [0191]).
`
`Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 a