DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/25 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 6-13 and 21-26 are rejected. Claims 1-5 and 14-20 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that amended claim 6 cannot be performed by the human mind. However, the Examiner disagrees. The amended limitation “wherein the data from each of the first, second, and third physiological sensors is not sent to the public health officials until it has been determined that first alarm status level indicates the specific viral, bacterial, fungal or parasitic infection” is directed to the abstract idea. This limitation is a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that are directed to organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). For example, this limitation is nothing more than waiting until the first alarm status level indicates the specific viral, bacterial, fungal or parasitic infection before verbally communicating the data to the public health officials.
Applicant argues that the structure in amended claim 6 are not well-understood, routine and conventional activities. However, the Examiner disagrees. See the cited references in the rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 6-13 and 21-26 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the period after the limitation “transmitting the first alert message to the public health officials.” must be removed since there can only be one period in a claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the first human-wearable sensors package” should recite –the first human-wearable sensor package—to match claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 6-13 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 6-13 and 21-26 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a multi-user infection tracker system.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claim 6, the recited steps are directed to certain methods of organizing human activity and a mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsections (II) and (III)).
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of “forming a first alert message; transmitting the first alert message to the public health officials, and wherein the data from each of the first, second, and third physiological sensors is not sent to the public health officials until it has been determined that first alarm status level indicates the specific viral, bacterial, fungal or parasitic infection” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that are directed to organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional determining what they will verbally communicate to public health officials regarding the health status of an individual and transmitting once the first alarm status level is determined.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations of “determining, using its first, second and third physiological sensors, if a first human that is wearing the first human-wearable sensor package is showing symptoms of a specific viral, bacterial, fungal or parasitic infection by exceeding pre-defined criteria for having contracted the specific threat infection; and setting a first alarm status level responsive to the determining step” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional analyzing print outs of data and determine if the user has symptoms of a specific viral, bacterial, fungal or parasitic infection by exceeding pre-defined criteria for having contracted the specific threat infection, and setting a first alarm status level in response.
Step 2A, Prong Two
For claim 6, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 6 recites “a plurality of human-wearable sensor packages, a first physiological sensor, a second physiological sensor, a third physiological sensor, a processor, a radio, storage, and a power source.” The plurality of human-wearable sensor packages, first physiological sensor, second physiological sensor, and third physiological sensor amount to nothing more than pre-solution activity of data gathering. The radio amounts to nothing more than post-solution activity of data gathering. The processor, storage, and power source are recited at a high-level of generality and amount to nothing more than parts of a generic computer. Merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do 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 elements of a plurality of human-wearable sensor packages, a first physiological sensor, a second physiological sensor, and a third physiological sensor amount to nothing more than mere pre-solution activity of data gathering and the radio amounts to nothing more than post-solution activity of data gathering, which does not amount to an inventive concept. Moreover, the plurality of human-wearable sensor packages, the first physiological sensor, second physiological sensor, third physiological sensor, and radio are well-understood, routine, and conventional structures as shown in WO 2006102538 (page 3, line 12-conventional wearable remote monitoring systems; page 3, lines 19-20-conventional art includes the Lifeshirt from VivoMetrics, Inc of Ventura, California. The Lifeshirt is an elastic garment including a plurality of sensor; page 3, lines 6-7-several physiological signals (including heart rate, skin temperature, skin conductivity, and physical activity); page 5, lines 20-21-a wearable system including one or more small, light-weight electronics/battery/radio packages), US 20150094552 (¶5-conventional or other to-be-developed processes and/or devices or systems; or, such signals may be taken from one or more wearable health monitoring devices; ¶19-a system hereof may include a device for monitoring physiological parameters such as one or more or all of electrocardiogram (aka ECG or EKG), photoplethysmogram (aka PPG), pulse oximetry, temperature and/or patient acceleration or movement signals; ¶102-wireless transmission), and US 20190099114 (¶4-a typical wrist-mounted biosensor device has a housing that may be secured to a wearer by a band, much like a conventional wristwatch; ¶82-a biosensor as disclosed herein can be used to monitor heart rate, respiration rate, oxygen saturation, blood pressure, body temperature, skin galvanic conditions, electrical impulses reflective of pulse rate or muscular contraction, body movement, and so on; ¶61-radio frequency). Further, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In this case, elements of general computer are being used to implement the abstract idea.
Regarding dependent claims 7-13 and 21-26, the limitations of claim 6 further define the limitations already indicated as being directed to the abstract idea.
Claim 7 further defines the data gathering, which is shown as well-understood, routine, and conventional above.
Claim 8 further defines the abstract idea. The limitations of “determines, using data from the motion sensor, that the human is sufficiently at-rest to take a temperature using the temperature sensor, or…determines, using data from the motion sensor, that the human is sufficiently at rest to take a heart rate reading using the heart-rate sensor” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional analyzing a print out of motion data to determine whether to take a temperature or heart rate.
Claim 9 further defines parts of a generic computer.
Claim 10 further defines the data gathering. An adhesive pad for coupling the first human-wearable sensors package to human skin is a well-understood, routine, and conventional structure as evidenced by WO 2006102538 (page 8, lines 15-16-adhesive electrodes for electro-cardiogram (ECG) or other bioelectrical measurement), US 20150094552 (¶29-the patient side electrodes 108 , 109 and/or 110 may be covered by a conductive adhesive material), and US 20060252999 (¶25-adhesive electrodes for electrocardiogram (ECG) or other bioelectrical measurement).
Claim 11 further defines the data gathering. An environmental sensor is a well-understood, routine, and conventional structure as evidenced by US 20190099114 (¶24-the sensor array 106 may include one or more sensors configured to collect vital sign information from the wearer, environmental information, and so on), WO 2006102538 (page 5, line 8-detecting environmental conditions), and US 20140323818 (¶45-a conventional environmental sensor).
Claim 12 further defines the data gathering. A position location sensor is a well-understood, routine, and conventional structure as evidenced by WO 2006102538 (page 18, line 32-a GPS receiver), US 20190099114 (¶60-a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit), and US 20140187976 (¶90-a more conventional location system, such as a global positioning system (GPS)).
Claims 13 and 25 further define post-solution activity.
Claim 21 further defines the abstract idea. The limitation of “wherein the second human-wearable sensor package further comprises a local alarm constructed to notify the second human of the second alarm status” is a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that are directed to organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional verbally communicating the first alarm status to the first human.
Claim 22 further defines the abstract idea and post-solution activity. The limitations of “Determining, using its first, second and third physiological sensors, if a second human that is wearing the second human-wearable sensor package is showing symptoms of the specific viral, bacterial, fungal or parasitic infection by exceeding pre-defined criteria for having contracted the specific threat infection; setting a second alarm status level responsive to the determining step; and forming a second alert message” are a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that can be performed by a human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard. For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional analyzing print outs of data and determine if the user has symptoms of a specific viral, bacterial, fungal or parasitic infection by exceeding pre-defined criteria for having contracted the specific threat infection, and setting a second alarm status level in response, and forming a second alert message. The transmitting step is post-solution activity.
Claim 23 further defines the abstract idea. The limitation of “wherein the second human-wearable sensor package further comprises a local alarm constructed to notify the second human of the second alarm status” is a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that are directed to organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional verbally communicating the second alarm status to the second human.
Claim 24 further defines the abstract idea. The limitation of “wherein the second human-wearable sensor package further comprises a local alarm constructed to notify the first human of the second alarm status” is a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that are directed to organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional verbally communicating the second alarm status to the first human.
Claim 26 further defines the abstract idea. The limitation of “wherein the alert message transmitted to the public health officials indicates that the human is not showing symptoms of the specific viral, bacterial, fungal or parasitic infection” is a process, as drafted, covers performance of the limitation that are directed to organizing human activity (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). For example, these limitations are nothing more than a medical professional verbally communicating that the human is not showing symptoms of the specific viral, bacterial, fungal or parasitic infection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 6-7, 9-13, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy (US 20190066845 filed on 8/28/18) in view of Sarkar (US 20180192873 filed on 10/23/15) and Sillay US 20140257047 filed on 3/6/13).
Regarding claim 6, Roy teaches a multi-user infection tracker system human-wearable sensor package, comprising: a plurality of human sensor packages (¶103-user devices 20), each human sensor package (¶103) comprising: a first physiological sensor (¶14-temperature sensors); a second physiological sensor (¶14-heart rate monitor); a third physiological sensor (¶14-accelerometer); a processor constructed to receive data from each of the first, second, and third physiological sensors (¶94-controller 44; ¶74-new sensor data 32 from the sensors 60 are received at the user devices 20); a radio for transmitting an the alert message to public health officials (¶60-the user devices 20 communicate over radio frequency links including both WiFi and cellular networks; ¶62-the diagnosis system 42 can create medical condition reports 36 for individuals carrying the user devices 20, and to public health officials; ¶64-the system 200 also communicates with infectious disease reporting systems 92 over the internet 23); storage (¶86-memory 88); and a power source (¶214-battery level….on a user device 20); and wherein a first one of the human sensor packages has a processor that performs steps of: determining, using its first, second and third physiological sensors (¶14), if a first human with the first human sensor package is showing symptoms of a specific viral, bacterial, fungal or parasitic infection (¶99-the diagnosis system 42 notifies the controller 44 w/timestamp that the report 36 was created and sent to user 1, and indicates a report type (e.g. bacterial infection); ¶15-monitoring, classifying and identifying early signs of infections); setting a first alarm status level responsive to the determining step (¶62-the diagnosis system 42 determines medical condition data 45 of the individuals in response to analyzing information sent from the user devices 20; ¶99-indicates a report type (e.g. bacterial infection); ¶65; ¶98); forming a first alert message (¶101-the controller in step 226 sends the medical condition reports 36 to user2 and user3, and notifies the infectious disease reporting system(s) 92; ¶100); and transmitting the first alert message to the public health officials (¶100-based upon the sensor data 32 (e.g. GPS coordinates), the controller 44 determines that both user2 and user3 were present at the same location (e.g. hotel hosting the conference) at the same time as user1; ¶101-the controller in step 226 sends the medical condition reports 36 to user2 and user3, and notifies the infectious disease reporting system(s) 92). However, Roy does not teach the sensor packages being human-wearable and detecting symptoms by exceeding pre-defined criteria for having contracted the specific threat infection.
Sarkar relates to monitoring physiological functions (¶1). Sarkar further teaches the invention using the following steps:
the sensor packages being human-wearable (¶55-sensor device is worn continually) and detecting symptoms by exceeding pre-defined criteria for having contracted the specific threat infection (¶49-the temperatures for subjects B and C increase above a threshold 60 which has previously been determined to be indicative of a disease condition; claim 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Roy to include the sensor packages being human-wearable and detecting symptoms by exceeding pre-defined criteria for having contracted the specific threat infection of Sarkar in order to assist in outbreak control (Sarkar, ¶61).
While the combination of Roy and Sarkar, teaches using data from sensors on individual user devices or groups of user devices to unobtrusively (without using personal identifiable information) to detect and monitor conditions, serving as an early warning system (¶126), the combination does not teach wherein the data from each of the first, second, and third physiological sensors is not sent to the public health officials until it has been determined that first alarm status level indicates the specific viral, bacterial, fungal or parasitic infection.
Sillay relates to objective medical health data collection utilizing mobile telecommunications apparatus or an alternative device, a health-linked database hierarchy, social networking for those diagnosed with disease, a permission system for health-based data sharing and linked health data exchange network for access by the diagnosed, medical practitioners, insurance carriers, medical researchers and others having access permission (¶1). Sillay further teaches the invention using the following step:
wherein the data from each of the first, second, and third physiological sensors is not sent to the public health officials until it has been determined that first alarm status level indicates the specific viral, bacterial, fungal or parasitic infection (¶175-data for use by a researcher may be obtained by processing or aggregating data from individuals diagnosed with a disease; ¶198-a pointer system that provides links to information related to individuals diagnosed with a disease and disease management or treatment that resides on protected infrastructure such as Servers, or other computers and computer systems that provide additional privacy and security safeguards; ¶154; ¶229).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Roy to include wherein the data from each of the first, second, and third physiological sensors is not sent to the public health officials until it has been determined that first alarm status level indicates the specific viral, bacterial, fungal or parasitic infection of Sillay in order to control privacy and sharing settings to enable another person or organization to access objective, subjective or multimedia data, either for the purpose of evaluation or treatment of the individual with disease, or with appropriate controls on the release of information that could undesirably identify the individual with disease for research purposes (Sillay, ¶25).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Roy, Sarkar, and Sillay teaches the multi-user infection tracker system human-wearable sensor package according to claim 6, wherein: the first physiological sensor is a temperature sensor (Roy, ¶14-temperature sensors); the second physiological sensor is a heart-rate sensor (Roy, ¶14-heart rate monitor); and the third physiological sensor is a motion sensor (Roy, ¶14-accelerometer).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Roy, Sarkar, and Sillay teaches the multi-user infection tracker system human-wearable sensor package according to claim 6, wherein the power source is a battery or harvests electricity from motion, light, or an electro-chemical source (Roy, ¶214-battery level).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Roy, Sarkar, and Sillay teaches the multi-user infection tracker system human-wearable sensor package according to claim 6, further including an adhesive pad for coupling the first human-wearable sensors package to human skin (Sarkar, ¶33-a layer of adhesive 51 (see FIG. 2) bonding the sensing device to the skin or by a strap 52 (see FIG. 3) which is attached to the sensing device and embraces part of the subject's body so as to hold the sensing device in contact with the surface of the subject's skin).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Roy further including an adhesive pad for coupling the sensors package to human skin of Sarkar in order to hold the sensing device in contact with the surface of the subject's skin (Sarkar, ¶33) and assist in outbreak control (Sarkar, ¶61).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Roy, Sarkar, and Sillay teaches the multi-user infection tracker system according to claim 6, further including an environmental sensor (Roy, ¶124-the S4 included all sensors as in the SIII, and also included an environmental temperature sensor, a relative humidity sensor, and an RGB ambient light sensor).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Roy, Sarkar, and Sillay teaches the multi-user infection tracker system according to claim 6, further including a position location sensor (Roy, ¶14-GPS; ¶100).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Roy, Sarkar, and Sillay teaches the multi-user infection tracker system according to claim 6, wherein at least one of the physiological sensors is remote (Roy, ¶14-the subsystems and sensors of the mobile user devices that may participate in gathering data) and communicates to the human-wearable sensor package using the radio (Roy, ¶60-the user devices 20 communicate over radio frequency links including both WiFi and cellular networks; ¶123).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Roy, Sarkar, and Sillay teaches the multi-user infection tracker system according to claim 6, wherein the first human-wearable sensor package further comprises a local alarm constructed to notify the first human of the first alarm status (Roy, ¶95-an early health warning system. Here, mobile devices 20 A, 20 B, and 20 C are carried by persons A, B, and C. The mobile devices 20 A, 20 B, and 20 C are respectively reporting diagnostics data 30 - 1 , 30 - 2 , and 30 - 3 of individuals user 1 , user 2 , and user 3 , respectively; ¶101).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Roy, Sarkar, and Sillay teaches the multi-user infection tracker system according to claim 6, wherein a second one of the human-wearable (Sarkar, ¶55-sensor device is worn continually) sensor packages (Roy, ¶103-user devices 20) has a processor (Roy, ¶94-controller 44) that performs steps of: determining, using its first, second and third physiological sensors (Roy, ¶14), if a second human that is wearing the second human-wearable sensor package is showing symptoms of the specific viral, bacterial, fungal or parasitic infection (Roy, ¶99-the diagnosis system 42 notifies the controller 44 w/timestamp that the report 36 was created and sent to user 1, and indicates a report type (e.g. bacterial infection); ¶15-monitoring, classifying and identifying early signs of infections; ¶95; ¶100-101) by exceeding pre-defined criteria for having contracted the specific threat infection (Sarkar, ¶49-the temperatures for subjects B and C increase above a threshold 60 which has previously been determined to be indicative of a disease condition; claim 11); setting a second alarm status level responsive to the determining step (Roy, ¶62-the diagnosis system 42 determines medical condition data 45 of the individuals in response to analyzing information sent from the user devices 20; ¶99-indicates a report type (e.g. bacterial infection); ¶65; ¶98); forming a second alert message (Roy, ¶101-the controller in step 226 sends the medical condition reports 36 to user2 and user3, and notifies the infectious disease reporting system(s) 92; ¶100); and transmitting the second alert message to the public health officials (Roy, ¶100-based upon the sensor data 32 (e.g. GPS coordinates), the controller 44 determines that both user2 and user3 were present at the same location (e.g. hotel hosting the conference) at the same time as user1; ¶101-the controller in step 226 sends the medical condition reports 36 to user2 and user3, and notifies the infectious disease reporting system(s) 92).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Roy to include a second one of the human-wearable and exceeding pre-defined criteria for having contracted the specific threat infection of Sarkar in order to assist in outbreak control (Sarkar, ¶61).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Roy, Sarkar, and Sillay teaches the multi-user infection tracker system according to claim 22, wherein the second human-wearable sensor package further comprises a local alarm constructed to notify the second human of the second alarm status (Roy, ¶95-an early health warning system. Here, mobile devices 20 A, 20 B, and 20 C are carried by persons A, B, and C. The mobile devices 20 A, 20 B, and 20 C are respectively reporting diagnostics data 30 - 1 , 30 - 2 , and 30 - 3 of individuals user 1 , user 2 , and user 3 , respectively; ¶101).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Roy, Sarkar, and Sillay teaches the multi-user infection tracker system according to claim 22, wherein the second human-wearable sensor package further comprises a local alarm constructed to notify the first human of the second alarm status (Roy, ¶100-the controller 44 compares the sensor data 32 of other users for the same historical time interval. Based upon the sensor data 32 (e.g. GPS coordinates), the controller 44 determines that both user 2 and user 3 were present at the same location (e.g. hotel hosting the conference) at the same time as user 1; ¶101-in response, in step 222 , the controller 44 notifies user 2 and user 3 , and requests that they send their diagnosis data 30 - 2 and 30 - 3 , respectively).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Roy, Sarkar, and Sillay teaches the multi-user infection tracker system according to claim 22, wherein the second human-wearable sensor package transmits the second alarm status or the second alarm message to the first human-wearable sensor package (Roy, ¶100-the controller 44 compares the sensor data 32 of other users for the same historical time interval. Based upon the sensor data 32 (e.g. GPS coordinates), the controller 44 determines that both user 2 and user 3 were present at the same location (e.g. hotel hosting the conference) at the same time as user 1; ¶101-in response, in step 222 , the controller 44 notifies user 2 and user 3 , and requests that they send their diagnosis data 30 - 2 and 30 - 3 , respectively).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Roy, Sarkar, and Sillay teaches the multi-user infection tracker system according to claim 6, wherein the alert message transmitted to the public health officials indicates that the human is not showing symptoms of the specific viral, bacterial, fungal or parasitic infection (Sarkar, ¶37-monitor a subject who is not showing symptoms of a disease in order to provide an alert if that subject develops symptoms that may be indicative of the disease; ¶35-the processor 20 of the relay device causes the transceiver 23 to transmit the measurements to the data centre 3; ¶54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Roy to include wherein the alert message transmitted to the public health officials indicates that the human is not showing symptoms of the specific viral, bacterial, fungal or parasitic infection of Sarkar in order to assist in outbreak control (Sarkar, ¶61).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy in view of Sarkar and Sillay as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Bonomi (WO 2015189304 filed on 6/11/15).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Roy, Sarkar, and Sillay teaches the multi-user infection tracker system according to claim 7. However, the combination of Roy, Sarkar, and Sillay does not teach wherein (2) the processor further determines, using data from the motion sensor, that the human is sufficiently at rest to take a heart rate reading using the heart-rate sensor.
Bonomi teaches wherein (2) the processor further determines, using data from the motion sensor, that the human is sufficiently at rest to take a heart rate reading using the heart-rate sensor (page 2, lines 15-21-an inactivity determining unit for determining periods of inactivity of a user based on motion or motion data detected by at least one motion sensor attached to the user and a resting heart rate calculating unit for calculating a resting heart rate of the user based on heart rate data measured by at least one heart rate sensor during periods of inactivity as determined by the inactivity determining unit is provided).
Bonomi relates to providing a heart rate monitor system which is able to determine the resting heart rate in an effective and unobtrusive and non-invasive manner (page 2, and lines 12-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Roy to include wherein (2) the processor further determines, using data from the motion sensor, that the human is sufficiently at rest to take a heart rate reading using the heart-rate sensor of Bonomi in order to determine the resting heart rate in an effective and unobtrusive and non-invasive manner (Bonomi, page 2 and lines 12-14).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA HODGE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7101. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, UNSU JUNG can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/L.N.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3792 /AMANDA L STEINBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 3792