Ex Parte Jeanne et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2017

14237570 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/237,570 02/07/2014 Vincent Jeanne 2011P01023WOUS 7018
24737 7590 12/04/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue LIU, LI
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2666
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2017 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):
patti. demichele @ Philips, com
marianne. fox @ philips, com
katelyn.mulroy @philips .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VINCENT JEANNE and MAARTEN PETER BODLAENDER
Appeal 2017-006071
Application 14/237,570
Technology Center 2600
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, KAMRAN JIVANI, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2017-006071
Application 14/237,570
INVENTION
“The present invention is based on the idea to use obtained image data
of a living being . . . not only for the extraction of vital signs but additionally
for the extraction of features of the living being that allow to uniquely
identify the living being.” Spec. 3,11. 3—6. The independent claims on
appeal are claims 1 and 12—14. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced
below.
1. A data administration system comprising:
a sensor for remotely obtaining image data of at least a body part
of a living being, and
at least one processor programmed to:
extract one or more vital signs of said living being from
the remotely obtained image data of said living being,
extract one or more features of said living being from the
remotely obtained image data of said living being,
determine the identity of said living being by use of said
one or more extracted features of said living being, and
associate the one or more extracted vital signs of said
living being with the determined identity of said living
being.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—10, 12—16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Friedman (US 2007/0129636 Al, published June 7, 2007),
Lavon (US 2013/0001422 Al, published Jan. 3, 2013), and Tupin
(US 2012/0059268 Al, published Mar. 8, 2012). Final Act. 4—11 (July 6,
2016).
2
Appeal 2017-006071
Application 14/237,570
Claims 11, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Friedman, Lavon, Tupin, and Maali (US 6,567,775 Bl, issued
May 20, 2003). Final Act. 11—12.
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1
Claim 1 recites “a sensor for remotely obtaining image data of at least
a body part of a living being, and at least one processor programmed to:
extract one or more vital signs of said living being from the remotely
obtained image data of said living being.” The Examiner finds Lavon’s
paragraphs 25, 27, and 59 teach the disputed limitation because:
[Lavon’s] monitor apparatus 10 uses various sensors to detect
energy forms such as electromagnetic, sound and light waves.
Please refer to Lavon, paragraphs [0025] and [0027]. Lavon
stated in paragraph [0025], for example, that “Such monitoring
devices may be able to detect minute body movements associated
with cardiopulmonary activity, respiration, heart rate,
temperature, or other physiological conditions. Such monitoring
devices may detect measurable phase change(s) in
electromagnetic waves as they reflect off a living subject, and
deduce from the phase change(s) information about
cardiopulmonary activity or other physiological conditions”.
Ans. 3^4. Appellants argue Lavon teaches caretakers determining vital
signs from patient webcam video and the like, not data extraction from the
image, as required by the claim. App. Br. 9. In response to the Examiner’s
findings, Appellants add:
[Paragraphs [0025] and [0027] of Lavon describe that
monitoring devices are able to measure minute body movements
associated with cardiopulmonary activity, respiration, heart rate,
temperature, or other physiological conditions. However, there
is no fair suggestion in Lavon that vital signs are extracted from
3
Appeal 2017-006071
Application 14/237,570
measurements of these various sensors. Rather, these sensors
may merely be used to measure vital signs of a patient[.]
Reply Br. 4.
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner finds
Lavon’s contactless monitoring: images the patient by “detect[ing]
measurable phase change(s) in electromagnetic waves as they reflect off a
living subject,” and extracts vital signs from the image data by “deduc[ing]
from the phase change(s) information about cardiopulmonary activity or
other physiological conditions.” Lavon 125; see also id. 1 54 (stating the
above detection forms a “scan area”). We note a relevant technical
dictionary supports the Examiner’s reading of claim 1 ’s “image data” on
Lavon by defining an “image” as a spatial distribution of reflectivity,
particularly stating: “image (1) (optoelectronic device) A spatial distribution
of a physical property, such as radiation, electric charge, conductivity, or
reflectivity, mapped from another distribution of either the same or another
physical property.” Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, The
Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms 532 (7th ed., IEEE Press
2000). Appellants, therefore, fail to provide sufficient evidence that the
Examiner erred in finding Lavon’s detecting and use of reflected waves
“obtain[s] image data” and “extracts]. . . vital signs . . . from the . . . image
data” (claim 1).
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claim 1.
Independent claims 12, 13, and 14
Appellants argue that the rejection of independent claims 12, 13, and
14 are allowable for the same reasons as indicated above with respect to
4
Appeal 2017-006071
Application 14/237,570
claim 1. App. Br. 14-15; Reply Br. 3-5. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 12, 13, and 14 for the same
reasons indicated above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2-10, 15, 16, 18, and 19
Appellants argue that the rejection of dependent claims 2-10, 15, 16,
18, and 19 are allowable for the same reasons as indicated above with
respect to the independent claim from which the claims depend. App. Br.
9-16; Reply Br. 3-5. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2-10, 15, 16, 18, and 19 for the same reasons indicated above with
respect to independent claims 1, 12, 13, and 14.
Claims 11, 17, and 20
Appellants argue that the rejection of dependent claims 11, 17, and 20
are allowable for the same reasons as indicated above with respect to the
independent claim from which the claims depend. App. Br. 17—18.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 17, and 20 for
the same reasons indicated above with respect to independent claims 1, 12,
and 14.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1—20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5