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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 ----2/16/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-18, and 20-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 12, 16, and 21-22 have been amended.
Claims 4, 15, and 19 have been previously canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-18, and 20-22 have been rejected.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The sanitization system of Claims 1, 12, and 16
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The Examiner has reviewed the as filed disclosure and determined the following:
The “sanitization system” in claim 1, 12, and 16.
Specification paragraph 33 and Figure 2 disclose data processing system 200 is an example of a computer, such as server 104 in Figure 1, in which computer-readable program code or instructions implementing the contamination management processes of illustrative embodiments may be located. Wherein Figure 2 discloses the sanitization system 240 is a component in the data processing system 200. Specification paragraph 77 further discloses the computer directs a sanitization system to perform appropriate sanitization of the object for the infectious agent. Further, specification paragraph 21 discloses server 104 directs an automated sanitization system to clean and sanitize the potentially contaminated object. The automated sanitization system may be a component of the object or may be an independent system, such as, for example, a separate robotic sanitization system. Therefore, the specification provides proper support for the hardware of the sanitization system.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Eligibility Under 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-18, and 20-22 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-18, and 20 are directed to a system, method, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Independent Claim 1 discloses a computer-implemented method for identifying physical objects needing sanitization, the computer-implemented method comprising: transmitting electromagnetic signals from a mobile device corresponding to a user through a body area network corresponding to the user when the user physically contacts an object; detecting signal propagation characteristics of the transmitted electromagnetic signal indicating physical contact between the user and the object via the body area network corresponding to the user; determining that the user currently has an infectious agent based on retrieved information from a remote medical database; automatically generating a contamination alert corresponding to the user and the object when the user physically contacts the object; automatically controlling a sanitization system to perform automated sanitization of the object for the infectious agent by: automatically determining appropriate sanitization procedures to be performed by the sanitization system based on the object, interaction of the user, and the type of infectious agent; and applying the determined appropriate sanitization procedures.
Independent Claims 12 and 16 disclose the computer system and computer program product for automated contamination detection and sanitization.
The examiner is interpreting the above bolded limitations as additional elements as further discussed below. The remaining un-bolded limitations are merely directed to rules or instructions a person would follow to identify an object touched by a user that needs sanitization. The series of steps recited above describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and thus are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity which is an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
The newly added amendment, “automatically controlling a sanitization system to perform automated sanitization of the object for the infectious agent by: automatically determining appropriate sanitization procedures to be performed by a sanitization system based on the object, interaction of the user, and the type of infectious agent; and applying the determined appropriate sanitization procedures” integrates the abstract idea into a practical application because it adds meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and as such transforms the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter. Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The Court evaluated the additional elements and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. In the claims of the instant application, the sanitization system is automatically controlled by a computer to perform a specific sanitization procedure based on the object, interaction of the user, and the type of infectious agent. Thus, the claims sufficiently limit the use of the judicial exception to the practical application of controlling a sanitization system to perform automated sanitization (based on the object, interaction of the user, and the type of infectious agent). (Step 2A-Prong 2: YES: the additional claimed elements are integrated into a practical application).
Thus, Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-18, and 20-22 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-14, 16-18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velleu (US 2022/0189072 A1), in view of Kim (US PG Pub 2019/0250678 A1), further in view of Hachisu et al. (EnhancedTouchX: Smart Bracelets for Augmenting Interpersonal Touch Interactions), Rajasekhar (US 2021/0287806 A1), and Hallack (US PG Pub 2020/0061223 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Velleu discloses:
A computer-implemented method for automated contamination detection and sanitization, the computer-implemented
automatically generating a contamination alert corresponding to the user and the object when the user physically contacts the object; (Paras 46-48 discloses smart surfaces may be able to display information to indicate contamination and/or sanitization levels… the sensors and indicator input devices 125 may be used to monitor and track contact activity associated with the vehicle. As an example, cameras may be used to monitor the interior of a vehicle and detect surfaces [objects] that have been touched and/or contacted, number of times contacted, and the lengths of each contact [interaction of the user]. The contamination and/or sanitization levels and/or alert information may be generated by the control module 131 and transmitted back to the network devices 102. The alert information may indicate the stated levels, areas to sanitize, areas that have been sanitized, areas that have unknown (or undeterminable) contamination and sanitization levels, areas that have not been contacted for extended periods of time, etc.
automatically controlling a sanitization system to perform automated sanitization of the object for the infectious agent by; (Para 60 discloses the supporting structure 200 includes a cleaning system 251, which may initiate and/or perform cleaning operations based on instructions from the infotainment module 204. This may include, for example, activating an ultraviolet C-bond (UVC) light and/or injecting and/or spraying disinfectant in an area of the supporting structure 200. Para 88 discloses data and insights are provided about vehicle use and occupant interactions as well as suggesting targeted cleaning maintenance. Countermeasures may be implemented such as providing contamination alerts, cleaning alerts, and information alerts. The countermeasures may include automatic cleaning and/or disinfecting of areas, such as the injection and/or spraying of disinfectant in the areas.)
automatically determining appropriate sanitization procedures to be performed by [[a]] the sanitization system based on the object, interaction of the user…; and applying the selected sanitization procedures (Para 37 discloses contamination levels may also be based on direct or indirect contact with surfaces. Direct contact may refer to when a person identified as having been exposed to a contaminate physically contacts and/or touches a surface, an inanimate object and/or an animate object. Indirect contact may refer to when the person breathes, coughs and/or sneezes on or near a surface [thus disclosing interaction of the user and the object]. Para 78 discloses at 622, the infotainment module 204 may generate via one or more of the transceivers 235 alert signals indicating areas of high contamination and/or that need to be cleaned. This allows for efficiencies in cleaning. Para 88 discloses countermeasures may be implemented such as providing contamination alerts, cleaning alerts, and information alerts. The countermeasures may include automatic cleaning and/or disinfecting of areas, such as the injection and/or spraying of disinfectant in the areas.)
While Velleu discloses the above limitations and Para 55 discloses “the physical contact and/or surface module 242 may track which surfaces have be touched and/or contacted based on signals from contact sensors and/or other sensors,” and Para 61 discloses “a portable network device including sensors, and may be a separate network device such as a mobile phone, tablet, a wearable device,” it does not fully disclose the following limitations that Kim discloses:
transmitting electromagnetic signals from a mobile device corresponding to a user…; detecting signal propagation characteristics of the transmitted electromagnetic signal indicating physical contact… (The application processor 320 may identify the external electronic device 102 or 104 by analyzing the electromagnetic signal or data generated on the basis of the electromagnetic signal. The application processor 320 may determine the proximity location between the electronic device 101 and the external electronic device 102 or 104 by analyzing the electromagnetic signal or the sensing value generated on the basis of the electromagnetic signal… When the electromagnetic signal has an intensity in a predetermined range or wide [thus disclosing a signal propagation characteristic], the electronic device 101 may detect proximity or contact of the external electronic device 102 or 104 and analyze the electromagnetic signal transmitted from the electromagnetic wave reception antenna in response to the proximity or contact of the external electronic device 102 or 104. Para 70 discloses the communication module 390 may include at least some of the elements and functions of the communication module 190 of FIG. 1 and FIG. 2. The communication module 190 may include at least one of Wi-Fi, light fidelity (Li-Fi), Bluetooth, Bluetooth low energy (BLE), ZigBee, near field communication (NFC), magnetic secure transmission, radio frequency (RF), and body area network (BAN), but is not limited thereto.)
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 combination of the method the contamination detection and notification systems taught by Velleu with the electromagnetic signal analysis as taught by Kim in order to more accurately identify when two objects contact each other wherein Velleu discloses “a motion tracking module that may be used to track movement within a vehicle to determine where contacts with surfaces have occurred… the physical contact and/or surface module 242 may track which surfaces have been touched and/or contacted based on signals from contact sensors.” It would have been obvious to modify this motion tracking module with the electromagnetic signals in order to more accurately identify when a user touches an object.
While the combination of Velleu and Kim disclose the above limitations, wherein Velleu discloses when a user touches an object and Kim discloses the ability to track proximity and contact using electromagnetic signals, the combination does not fully disclose the following limitation that Hachisu discloses:
signals… between the user and the object via the body area network corresponding to the user; through a body area network corresponding to the user when the user physically contacts an object (Abstract discloses the developed device can connect to an external device via Bluetooth Low Energy for monitoring and logging where, when, how long, who, and how the touch interactions occurred. Page 2 discusses the concept of a BAN proposed by Zimmerman, that uses the human body as a communication channel, a modulating signal propagates between a transmitter and a receiver through the human body when it comes in contact with both the transmitter and the receiver).)
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 combination of the method the contamination detection and notification systems taught by Velleu and the method and electronic device for controlling external electronic device through electromagnetic signal as taught by Kim to have a body area network correspond to the user signals through the body of the user toward the object when the user physically contacts the object, as taught by Hachisu, for the purpose of using a device to determine the contact using a BAN for touch/proximity sensing (Hachisu Page 3).
While the combination of Velleu, Kim, and Hachisu discloses the above limitations and Velleu further discloses, “an occupant of a vehicle that is sick and/or has, for example, a virus may contact various points on and/or in a vehicle… The occupant may also, through the air, contaminate surfaces by breathing, coughing, and/or sneezing within the vehicle,” (Para 3) wherein the tracking module of Velleu determines a contamination level and implements automatic cleaning (Para 78 and 88), it does not fully disclose the following limitations that Rajasekhar discloses:
determining that the user currently has an infectious agent based on retrieved information from a remote medical database; (Para 35 discloses patient data may additionally or alternatively be collected into patient reports and/or uploaded into suitable electronic health records [a remote medical database]. Para 50 discloses at least some information may additionally or alternatively be automatically pulled from the patient's medical record for consideration by the remote monitoring system (e.g., new positive test for the contagious disease)).
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 combination of the method the contamination detection and notification systems taught by Velleu, the method and electronic device for controlling external electronic device through electromagnetic signal as taught by Kim, and the body area network as taught by Hachisu with devices and methods of remotely monitoring and triaging patients as taught by Rajasekhar to obtain patient information that can be transmitted in a HIPPA-compliant manner (Rajasekhar Para 34) and to gather any changes or updates to other patient data such as “social exposure risk (e.g., recent visits to hospital, test results, close contact exposure to other person (s) at risk for the contagious disease, etc.) (Rajasekhar Para 50).
While the combination of Velleu, Kim, Hachisu, and Rajasekhar discloses the above limitations, it does not fully disclose the following limitation that Hallack discloses:
automatically determining appropriate sanitization procedures to be performed by [[a]] the sanitization system based on… the type of infectious agent and applying the determined appropriate sanitization procedures (Paras 31-32 disclose a controller 46 additionally receives input information from a selector 126 where the selector 126 can include, for example, the desired clean setting 126 a and/or type of cleaning setting 126 b. Upon selecting the desired parameters to be factored into the performance of the disinfection cycle, the selector 126 sends the input information concerning the disinfection cycle to the controller 46 where the processor 46 b controls the at least one light assembly 22 to project the desired light 38 into the space. Controller 46 additionally may receive input/information related to one or more environmental condition within the space….. Sensor 42 is a device configured to detect a desired parameter of the environmental condition in the space. The environmental condition may comprise the occupancy and/or cleanliness of the space. Further, sensor 42 may relay the corresponding input information concerning a respective environmental condition to controller 46. Sensor 42 may be, but is not limited to, a motion sensor/detector 42 a, a proximity sensor/detector 42 b, infrared sensor, a contamination or cleanliness sensor/detector 42 c, or any other sensor suitable to perform the operations described herein. Para 40 discloses sensor(s) 42 send corresponding input/information concerning respective environmental conditions to controller 46 where processor 46 b derives setting corresponding to when, the type, the location, and/or the intensity of light 38 to be emitted for disinfection. Accordingly, when a disinfection cycle is to begin, controller 46 sends a command signal to light assembly 22 to emit light in accordance with the derived settings. Para 43 discloses sensor 42 detects a contamination or cleanliness of passenger compartment 48. The detection may include illuminating a surface with light and imaging the surface to detect bacteria, viruses, dirt, and/or grime. Further, the detection may include fluorescent dye applicator 35 to pray the surface with a fluorescent dye before illumination. Detected contamination or cleanliness data may then be sent to controller 46 which in turn may initiate a disinfection cycle. Para 44 discloses upon initiation of a disinfection cycle, light source 34 may illuminate a region with detected bacteria, viruses, dirt, and/or grime with germicidal light. This illumination may be adjusted by controller 46 in accordance with the detected contamination or cleanliness data. For example, intensity may be increased when heightened levels of detect bacteria, viruses, dirt, and/or grime are detected. Further, the illumination may be adjusted to selectively target specific areas where bacteria, viruses, dirt, and/or grime are detected [thus disclosing automatically determining appropriate sanitization protocols based on the type of infectious agent]. For example, light assembly 22 may be configured to move, steer, activate, or otherwise influence the light to emit where the area to be targeted is positioned, such as a control region 26. In such embodiments, disinfection system 10 may comprise one or more positioning devices (e.g., a motor, actuator, etc.) which may correspond to electro-mechanical systems configured to adjust a position and/or projection direction of the one or more light sources 34 [applying the determined appropriate sanitization protocols.)
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 combination of the contamination detection and notification systems taught by Velleu, the method and electronic device for controlling external electronic device through electromagnetic signal as taught by Kim, the body area network as taught by Hachisu, and the devices and methods of remotely monitoring and triaging patients as taught by Rajasekhar as taught by Rajasekhar with the disinfection system by Hallack in order to effectively clean an occupiable space to improve the hygiene, customer satisfaction, and efficiency (Hallack para 4).
Regarding Claim 2, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Velleu, Kim, Hachisu, Rajasekhar, and Hallack discloses the following limitation that Velleu further discloses:
utilizing an extended reality system to generate a visualization of potential contamination of the object with the infectious agent. (Para 35 discloses information may be provided in the form of an augmented reality (AR) where a display of a portable network device shows an interior area including highlighted portions indicating areas that are contaminated and/or sanitized.)
Regarding Claim 3, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Velleu, Kim, Hachisu, Rajasekhar, and Hallack discloses the following limitation that Velleu further discloses:
sending an alert to other mobile devices corresponding to other users in a defined area surrounding the object indicating that the object is potentially contaminated with the infectious agent, wherein potential contamination of the object is determined by the user contacting the object. (Para 48 discloses network devices indicating contamination of the surfaces via devices of portable network devices, and the contamination levels alert information may be generated by the control module. The network devices. Para 39 discloses various network devices includes cellular phones, mobile access devices, etc.)
Regarding Claim 5, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Velleu, Kim, Hachisu, Rajasekhar, and Hallack discloses the following limitation that Velleu further discloses:
tracking the sanitization of the object for the infectious agent; and recording the sanitization of the object for the infectious agent after the sanitization is completed indicating that the object is free of the infectious agent. (Para 42 discloses the sanitization tracking and indication module may to monitor, track and/or determine sanitization levels of surfaces. Para 63 discloses the cleaning application display cleaning information indicating areas that have been cleaned, when the areas were last cleaned, surfaces that were last cleaned, when the surfaces were last cleaned probability levels of whether certain surfaces and/or areas have been cleaned.)
Regarding Claim 6, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Velleu, Kim, Hachisu, Rajasekhar, and Hallack discloses the following limitation that Rajasekhar further discloses:
The method of claim 1 further comprising: retrieving a health profile corresponding to the user from the mobile device (Para 35 discloses patient data may additionally or alternatively be collected into patient reports and/or uploaded into suitable electronic health records. Para 34 discloses patient data may be transmitted wirelessly, for example (e.g., through Bluetooth, WiFi, 3G/4G/5G cellular networks, etc.).)
determining whether the user currently has the infectious agent based the health profile (Para 35 discloses as described in further detail below, the patient data may be provided through a reporting protocol performed by the patient as part of a regular (e.g., daily) assessment and include, for example, information relating to symptoms, vital signs, social exposure risk (e.g., activities that may increase the risk profile of the patient with respect to the contagious disease), and/or any other suitable information… patient data may additionally or alternatively be collected into patient reports and/or uploaded into suitable electronic health records. Para 37 discloses the API may enable the remote monitoring system to push suitable patient information (e.g., data such as patient assessments including symptoms and/or vital signs) to the patient's medical record in an electronic medical record system. Para 50 discloses at least some information may additionally or alternatively be automatically pulled from the patient's medical record [broadly a health profile] for consideration by the remote monitoring system (e.g., new positive test for the contagious disease).
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 combination of the method the contamination detection and notification systems taught by Velleu, the method and electronic device for controlling external electronic device through electromagnetic signal as taught by Kim, the body area network as taught by Hachisu, and the disinfection system by Hallack with devices and methods of remotely monitoring and triaging patients as taught by Rajasekhar to obtain patient information that can be transmitted in a HIPPA-compliant manner (Rajasekhar Para 34) and to gather any changes or updates to other patient data such as “social exposure risk (e.g., recent visits to hospital, test results, close contact exposure to other person (s) at risk for the contagious disease, etc.) (Rajasekhar Para 50).
Regarding Claim 7, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Velleu, Kim, Hachisu, Rajasekhar, and Hallack discloses the following limitation that Velleu further discloses:
receiving user interaction data from the mobile device regarding the user touching the object (Paragraph 43 discusses contamination data indicating levels of contamination for various surfaces, and the information is reported to an occupant via displays or a network devices); and
identifying the user (Para 37 discloses identifying a person who contacts a surface as being exposed to a contaminate), the object (Para 53 discloses the activity tracking module including identifying surfaces contacts), user interaction type (Para 53 discloses the activity tracking module recording doors opened, button pushed), and user interaction duration based on the user interaction data received from the mobile device (Para 51 discloses the contamination tracking and indication module includes duration of contacts. Para 53 discloses the activity module collecting data from the sensors that records contact data.)
Regarding Claim 8, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. While Hachisu discloses the body area network corresponding to the user (See Page 2 discusses the concept of a BAN proposed by Zimmerman), the combination of Velleu, Kim, Hachisu, Rajasekhar, and Hallack discloses the following limitation that Velleu further discloses:
receiving a first indication of contact between the mobile device and the user and (Para 79 discloses discusses the infotainment module receiving indications showing contamination, and the information can be transmitted to a portable network device)
receiving a second indication of a connection between the mobile device and the object (Para 37 describes indirect contact as when a second individual contact a surface. Para 80 describes the infotainment module display contamination via smart surfaces to a portable network device)).
Regarding Claim 9, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 8 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Velleu, Kim, Hachisu, Rajasekhar, and Hallack discloses the following limitation that Hachisu further discloses:
The method of claim 8, wherein the mobile device is a mobile body area network device corresponding to the body area network of the user, the body area network detecting physical contact between the user and the object. (Page 3 discusses BAN technology performing communication via electric currents in the human body and the user having to attach the device on the skin. Determining touch location via DiamondTouch by a set of transmitter embedded in the object and generates a location-dependent signal while a receiver receives signals propagated through a user’s body. BAN technologies are implemented in a bracelet device)
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 combination of the contamination detection and notification systems taught by Velleu, the method and electronic device for controlling external electronic device through electromagnetic signal as taught by Kim, devices and methods of remotely monitoring and triaging patients as taught by as taught by Rajasekhar, and the disinfection system by Hallack to include a mobile device that is a mobile network device corresponding to the body area network that detects physical contact, as taught by Hachisu, to establish a connection between the object and the communication device by using a BAN to determine touch location by transmitting and receiving signals worn by a user.
Regarding Claim 10, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Velleu, Kim, Hachisu, Rajasekhar, and Hallack discloses the following limitation that Velleu further discloses:
providing the user with a preferred sanitization procedure for the object (Para 41 discloses the cleaning indication module providing suggested cleaning instructions).
Regarding Claim 11, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Velleu, Kim, Hachisu, Rajasekhar, and Hallack discloses the following limitation that Velleu further discloses:
using a display system and a sound system of the object to display a warning and sound an alert to inform potential users that the object is potentially contaminated with the infectious agent (Para 48 discloses the contamination and/or sanitization levels and/or alert information may be generated by the control module 131 and transmitted back to the network devices. Para 61 discloses a portable network device including a display, an audio system.)
As to claims 12-14, the claims are directed to the computer system implementing the method of claims 1-3 and further recite a bus system, storage device connected to the bus system, wherein the storage device stores program instructions and a processor connected to the bus system (e.g., see Velleu Para 49 teaching a controller area network bus, Para 93 and 95 teaching multiple modules connected via interface circuits and a memory circuit (computer readable medium, and Para 92 teaching a processor circuit) and are similarly rejected.
As to claims 16-18 and 20, the claims are directed to the computer program product of the method of claims 1-3 and 5 and further recite a computer-readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer to cause the computer to perform a method (See Para 82 teaching storage medium comprising data and / or information and computer readable code that may be executed by a computational device) and are similarly rejected.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velleu (US 2022/0189072 A1), in view of Kim (US PG Pub 2019/0250678 A1), further in view of Hachisu et al. (EnhancedTouchX: Smart Bracelets for Augmenting Interpersonal Touch Interactions), Rajasekhar (US 2021/0287806 A1), Hallack (US PG Pub 2020/0061223 A1) and Correnti (US PG Pub 2020/0168339 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Velleu, Kim, Hachisu, Rajasekhar, and Hallack does not fully disclose the following limitation that Correnti discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the sanitization system comprises a robotic sanitization system (Para 17 discloses techniques are described for using a robotic device, such as a drone, to autonomous monitor activity within a property to predict a high likelihood of germ or disease transmission, and in response, automatically perform one or more sterilization operations to regions of a property to reduce the likelihood of germ or disease transmission.)
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 combination of the method the contamination detection and notification systems taught by Velleu, the method and electronic device for controlling external electronic device through electromagnetic signal as taught by Kim, the body area network as taught by Hachisu, devices and methods of remotely monitoring and triaging patients as taught by Rajasekhar, and the disinfection system by Hallack with the automated surface sterilization techniques as taught by Correnti in order to autonomously monitor activity within a property to predict a high likelihood of germ or disease transmission, and in response, automatically perform one or more sterilization operations to regions of a property to reduce the likelihood of germ or disease transmission (Para 17).
Regarding Claim 22, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 12 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Velleu, Kim, Hachisu, Rajasekhar, and Hallack does not fully disclose the following limitation that Correnti discloses:
The computer system of claim 12, wherein the sanitization system comprises a robotic sanitization system (Para 17 discloses techniques are described for using a robotic device, such as a drone, to autonomous monitor activity within a property to predict a high likelihood of germ or disease transmission, and in response, automatically perform one or more sterilization operations to regions of a property to reduce the likelihood of germ or disease transmission.)
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 combination of the method the contamination detection and notification systems taught by Velleu, the method and electronic device for controlling external electronic device through electromagnetic signal as taught by Kim, the body area network as taught by Hachisu, devices and methods of remotely monitoring and triaging patients as taught by Rajasekhar, and the disinfection system by Hallack with the automated surface sterilization techniques as taught by Correnti in order to autonomously monitor activity within a property to predict a high likelihood of germ or disease transmission, and in response, automatically perform one or more sterilization operations to regions of a property to reduce the likelihood of germ or disease transmission (Para 17).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/16/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) in regards to the signal propagation limitation have been fully considered and are persuasive. As such, the previous 112(a) of the signal propagation limitation has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/16/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and 112(b) in regards to have been fully considered. In light of the amendment of claims 21-22 to read "the sanitization system" and "a robotic sanitization system" and the amendment to claims 1 and 12 to read "sanitization procedures" the lack of antecedent basis rejection under 112(b) has been withdrawn. Further, the amendment of claims 21-22 to read, "a robotic sanitization system" overcomes the lack of written description rejection under 112(a) and therefore the previous 112(a) rejection of claims 21-22 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/16/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding the newly added limitations. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 necessitated by Applicant’s amendments as disclosed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA J MORICE DE VARGAS whose telephone number is (703)756-4608. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 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, Peter H. Choi can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/SARA JESSICA MORICE DE VARGAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights