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 - Panasonic Corporation
`8300 Greensboro Dr
`Suite 500
`McLean, VA 22102
`
`ORTEGA, MARTIN NATHAN
`
`3791
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`07/30/2024
`
`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
`
`eofficeaction @appcoll.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`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 30 April 2024.
`C) A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)[¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J 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.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1-2,4-6,8-17,26 and 28-33 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`CL] Claim(s)__is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1-2,4-6,8-17,26 and 28-33 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://www.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)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J 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)7) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2) 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 20240711
`
`

`

`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.
`
`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 2, 6, 10-14, and 31-33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or
`
`35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to
`
`particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the
`
`inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
`
`112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
`
`Claims 2 and 10 recite “the image sensorreceives a reflected light pulse
`
`returning from the head portion in response to emission of the light pulse”in lines
`
`4-5, but is indefinite. Claim | already teachesthe limitation. Is the “a reflected
`
`light pulse returning from the head portion”in claims 2 and 10 the sameas or
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 3
`
`different than the “at least part of reflected light returning from the head portion”
`
`in claim 1? Further clarification required.
`
`Claim 6 recites “outputs, as the brain activity data during the second time
`
`period”in lines 2-3, but is indefinite because the limitation contradicts claim 1.
`
`Claim 1 teaches that the signal processor stops outputting the brain activity during
`
`the second time period. Further clarification required.
`
`Claim 14 recites “wherein the signal processorthe validity signal” in lines 2-
`
`3, but is grammatically unclear. Is the signal processor making a calculation,
`
`determination, or something else? For examination purposes, the limitation will be
`
`interpreted as the signal processor is making a calculation. Further clarification
`
`required.
`
`Claim 31 recites “the brain activity data that is generated prior to the first
`
`time period”in lines 2-3, but lacks proper antecedentbasis. It appears the rejection
`
`can be overcome by amending to recite --the brain activity data that is generated
`
`prior to a first time period--.
`
`Claim 32 recites “processor stops outputting the brain activity data during
`
`the second time period”in lines 3-4, but is indefinite because the limitation is
`
`already recited in claim 1. It appears the rejection can be overcome by amending
`
`all of claim 32 to recite -- The biometric measurement apparatus according to
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 4
`
`claim 1, wherein the image sensor continuesto detect the at least part of the
`
`reflected light during the second timeperiod--.
`
`Claim 33 recites “the second time period include an invalid time period
`
`whenthe validity signal indicates that the measured data by the imagesensoris
`
`invalid...subsequent to an end of the invalid time period”in the last limitation, but
`
`is indefinite. Does the second period include the invalid period, third period and
`
`fourth period? If not, when does the third and fourth time period begin/end, in
`
`relation to the second period? For examination purposes, the second, third, and
`
`fourth periods are independent, the second time period is an invalid measurement
`
`period.
`
`Claimsnotlisted are reject by virtue of claim dependency.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action
`
`can be found in a prior Office action.
`
`Claims 1-2,4-6,8-17,26 and 28-33 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 5
`
`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, whichis
`
`one of the statutory categories of invention
`
`The claim is then analyzed to determine whetherit is directed to any judicial
`
`exception. The step of indicating that the measured data is valid 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
`
`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 doesnot effect a particular treatmentor effect a particular change
`
`based on the stopped output of brain activity, nor does the methodusea particular
`
`machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 6
`
`Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or
`
`combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amountsto
`
`significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites
`
`additional steps of emitting light, outputting an image, generating/outputting brain
`
`activity, and generating a validity signal. Emitting light, outputting an imagesignal
`
`based on detected reflected light, generating/outputting brain activity, and
`
`generating a validity signal based on an image signal is well-understood, routine
`
`and conventional activity 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 comparing activity engaged in by medical
`
`professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore,it is well established that
`
`the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the emitting,
`
`outputting, and generating 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)).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 7
`
`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.
`
`The samerationale applies to claim 33.
`
`Regarding claims 1 and 28, 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
`
`using a computeras a tool to perform an abstract idea does notintegrate the
`
`Abstract Idea into a practical application
`
`The dependent claims also fail to add something moreto the abstract
`
`independentclaims as they generally recite method steps pertaining to data
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 8
`
`gathering and processing. The controlling, gathering and calculating steps recited
`
`in the independent claims 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 groundofrejection if the prior
`
`art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under
`
`eitherstatus.
`
`The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action
`
`can be found in a prior Office action.
`
`Claims 1-2, 8-11, 26 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
`
`unpatentable over Satoi et al. (US 2017/0231544 A1- Previously cited),
`
`referred to as Satoi hereinafter, in view of Chakravarthyet al. (US
`
`20200029911 A1- Previously cited), 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 9
`
`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 sensor to output an image signal 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), the controller causes the light source to repeatedly
`
`emit the light during a specific time period and causes the image sensorto
`
`repeatedly output the image signal during the specific time period (see para.
`
`[0056], “output the electrical signal at a plurality of times, and the calculation
`
`circuit may, in operation, generate the signal of the biological information over
`
`time based on the electrical signal outputted from the light detector at the plurality
`
`of times” indicating that light must be emitted a plurality of times during
`
`measurement period to output the data related to received light), the signal
`
`processorgenerates brain activity data 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 imagesignal resulting from the patient
`
`position in respect to the current image area, distance from the image sensor, and
`
`angle at which the image sensoris from the sensor region (see para. [0123-134]).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 10
`
`Satoi fails to teach outputting the brain activity data duringa first time
`
`period of the specific time period when a validity signal indicates that measured
`
`data by the imagesensoris valid, and stops outputting the brain activity data
`
`during a second time period of the specific time period whenthe validity signal
`
`indicates that the measured data is invalid, the validity signal is generated based on
`
`the image signal, and the signal processor further stops outputting the brain activity
`
`data during at least a time period selected from the group consisting of a third time
`
`period prior to a start of the second time period and a fourth time period
`
`subsequentto an end of the second timeperiod, during the third and fourth time
`
`periods, the validity signal indicating that the measured datais valid.
`
`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 more factors
`
`including, detection of excessive patient movement, results in the measurements
`
`output being paused/stopped(see para. [0061]). The processor outputs data thatis
`
`determined as valid, there are two processes, at startup and during a monitoring
`
`period. During the startup and monitoring period, there are periods in which
`
`invalid data is not output, these periods can occurat any time, e,g., continuously,
`
`intermittently, etc., along with valid data that is output when invalid data
`
`measurement requirements are not met. Therefore, periods of invalid data and valid
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page11
`
`data output can occur consecutively, e.g., off, on, off, on, based on the signal
`
`validity indicating valid or invalid data (see para. [0060-68] and fig. 10b and 11-
`
`14).
`
`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 output is stopped during periods of invalid measurement and
`
`output valid data based on determining whensignal validity is valid, 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 poorsignal quality
`
`based on additional factors, including, excessive patient movement.
`
`Regarding claim 2, Satoi teaches wherein thelight is a light pulse (see para.
`
`[0090]), the image sensorreceives a reflected light pulse returning from the head
`
`portion in response to emission of the light pulse (see para. [0093]), an intensity of
`
`the reflected light pulse starts decreasing fromafirst timing and stops decreasing at
`
`a secondtiming (see para. [0055,0058], the intensity of light is reduced based on
`
`parameters for a period of time until requirements have mete.g., distance,etc.),
`
`and the controller causes the image sensor to output, as the imagesignal, a
`
`first signal that is obtained by detecting a component includedin the reflected light
`
`pulse during a time period from thefirst timing to the second timing, and the brain
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 12
`
`activity is generated based onthefirst signal (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; the image signal is measureda plurality of
`
`times, e.g., when intensity decreases/increase/remains the same, therefore the brain
`
`activity data generated will be based on the plurality of signals, including the
`
`second signal).
`
`Regarding claim 8, sections of Satoi-Chakravarthy, cited above,fail to
`
`teach wherein the fourth time period is longer than the third time period. The
`
`length of the fourth time period is not specifically disclosed which suggestsit is
`
`subject to optimization based on the desired performance. As such, the length of
`
`the fourth time periodis 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
`
`waseffectively filed to select the length of the fourth time period, so as to obtain
`
`the desired performance.
`
`Regarding claim 9, Chakravarthy teaches wherein a frequency of
`
`generating the validity signal is equal to a frequency of generating the brain
`
`activity data (see para. [0053,0061], “If each of the measurements indicate that the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 13
`
`integrity of the I+ electrode is poor, then a device detach flag is set” and “signal
`
`quality metrics are determined from the one or more signals acquired”indicating
`
`that the metrics for each signal are acquired).
`
`Regarding claim 10, Satoi-Chakravarthy teaches wherein the light is a light
`
`pulse (see para. [0090] of Satoi) the image sensorreceives a reflected light pulse
`
`returning from the head portion in response to emission ofthe light pulse (see para.
`
`[0093]), an intensity of the reflected light pulse starts decreasing fromafirst timing
`
`(see para. [(0055,0058], the intensity of light is reduced based on parameters for a
`
`period of time until requirements have mete.g., distance,etc.),
`
`and the controller causes the image sensor to output, as the imagesignal, a
`
`second signal that is obtained by detecting a component includedin the reflected
`
`light pulse priorto the first timing period, and the brain activity is generated based
`
`on the second signal (see para. [0045,0056,0058,0096,0129], an image signal
`
`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; the image signal is measureda plurality of times, e.g.,
`
`whenintensity decreases/increase/remains the same, therefore the brain activity
`
`data generated will be based on the plurality of signals, including thefirst signal).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 14
`
`Regarding claim 11, sections of Satoi-Chakravarthy, cited above, teach
`
`wherein the signal processor calculates, based on the detection of movementof the
`
`user, a displacement portion of the head portion (see para. [0137,0169] of Satoi,
`
`the signal processor calculates the displacement from the normaldirection
`
`(reference position) of the head portion of the user) and the validity signalis
`
`generated based on the displacement and indicates that the measured data is invalid
`
`whenthe absolute value of the displacement or 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 obviousto one of ordinary skill in the art at the
`
`time the invention waseffectively filed to select the absolute value of displacement
`
`and threshold, so as to obtain the desired performance.
`
`Regarding claim 32, Satoi-Chakravarthy teach wherein the image sensor
`
`continues to detect the at least past of the reflected light during the second time
`
`period,
`
`the signal processor stops outputting the brain activity data during the
`
`second period (section of Satoi-Chakravarthy, cited aboveteach,that
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 15
`
`measurements(brain activity data) will continue to be read during periods of
`
`invalid reading to determine when conditions indicate valid readings).
`
`Claims4-6 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- Previously cited), referred to as Penders hereinafter.
`
`Regarding claims 4-6, Satoi-Chakravarthy fails to teach wherein the signal
`
`processoroutputs, during the second timeperiod, the following: a signal indicating
`
`that the brain activity remains invalid, data identical to the brain activity data that
`
`is generated priorto the first time period, and data that is obtained by interpolating
`
`betweenthe brain activity data generated prior to the second time period and the
`
`brain activity data generated subsequent to the second time period.
`
`Penders teaches a method anddevice for processing biological data of a user
`
`and further determine quality metrics, such as noise and/orartifacts (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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 16
`
`interpolated data, as taught by Penders, to aid in 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 A1- Previously cited).
`
`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.
`
`[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 the validity signal is
`
`generated based on the are and indicates that the measured data is invalid when an
`
`absolute value of the luminanceor an absolute value of the change rate exceeds a
`
`threshold. Chakravarthy teaches output data can be paused based on one or more
`
`factors.
`
`Suehira teaches a 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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 17
`
`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 outputis invalid, 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 result 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
`
`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
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 18
`
`20200029911 A1), as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Shioiet al.
`
`(US 20090030295 A1- Previously cited), 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 validity signal is generated
`
`based on the area and indicates that the measured data is invalid if the areais
`
`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 determined to be smaller than a threshold (see para. [0163-
`
`164]).
`
`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 determineinvalid, as taught by Shioi, because Chakravarthy teaches
`
`that other factors can result in poor signal quality to measure biometric
`
`information, but fails to disclose details. Shioi teaches that a target area smaller
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/953,217
`Art Unit: 3791
`
`Page 19
`
`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 as being unpatentable over
`
`Satoi et al. (US 2017/0231544 A1) in view of Chakravarthyet al. (US
`
`20200029911 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lubin et al. (US
`
`20200342245 A1- Previously cited), referred to as Lubin hereinafter.
`
`Regarding claim 14, Satoi-Chakravarthy teach wherein the signal processor
`
`determines the validity signal includes a value that changes in time andis
`
`generated based on brain activity (see para. [0075], the biological information
`
`extracted from the brain activity includes a plurality of values of blood flowrate,
`
`blood pressure, oxygen saturation; one skilled in the art understands the above
`
`biological information changesover time). Satoi-Chakravarthy fails to teach
`
`wherein the validity signal indicates that the measured data is invalid when an
`
`absolute value of a changerate in the second value exceedsa threshold.
`
`Lubin teaches a system for measuring structural features of biological
`
`features, such as blood flow, heartbeat, pulsation, vasodilation and/or
`
`vasocontraction, and further determine a poor quality of image data based on the
`
`detected changes of the biological features exceeding a threshold (see ABSTRACT
`
`and para. [0075]).
`
`

`

`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 a change rate in the second value exceeds a threshold is calculated, as
`
`taught by Lubin, because Chakravarthy teaches that other factors can result in poor
`
`signal quality to measure biometric information, but fails to disclose details. Lubin
`
`teaches value of a changerate of the second value exceeding a threshold indicates
`
`an error/poor quality and cannotcorrectly detect the target region (see para.
`
`[0075]).
`
`The absolute value of the change rate and threshold are not specifically
`
`disclosed which suggests it is subject to optimization based on the desired
`
`performance. Assuch, the absolute value of the change rate and threshold are
`
`results-effective variables that would have be