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 .
Claim Objections
The Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 20, the term “The system in accordance with Claim 16” should be replaced with -- The system in accordance with Claim 16,-- for consistency in grammar with the other claims.
Appropriate correction is required and applicant should carefully review the Claims for any other informalities.
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 1-5, 7-11, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim(s) recites “analyze the body temperature data relative to a body temperature threshold, wherein the body temperature threshold is associated with an elevated body temperature” which amounts to an abstract idea (mental process).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
- The claims fail to outline an improvement to the technical field.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception with a particular machine.
- The claims fail to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or a combination of elements, integrates judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“a first temperature sensor positioned at least partially within a passenger compartment of the vehicle, the first temperature sensor configured to determine a body temperature of at least one passenger within the passenger compartment;”
“a transmitter configured to wirelessly transmit body temperature data determined by the first temperature sensor;”
“receive, from the client device, a request for a body temperature analysis of the at least one passenger;”
“in response to receiving the request, retrieve from the first temperature sensor associated with the vehicle, body temperature data associated with at least one passenger within the vehicle;”
“output, to the client device, a result of the analysis of the body temperature data.”
The additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they seem to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they pertain merely to insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities and generic postsolution activity.
Furthermore, temperature sensors and transmitters are general fields of use and servers and processors are generic computer elements used to perform generic computer functions and don’t add significantly more and are well-understood, routine, and previously known to the industry.
None of these limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because the claim taken as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of receiving passenger compartment occupant temperature data to evaluate occupant for an illness and does not purport to improve the functioning of the signal processing, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of a generic signal processing does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent claims 2-5 also do not add significantly more to the exception as they merely add details to the extrasolution data gathering activity, add details to the mental steps, and add details to the generic postsolution activity.
Regarding Claim 7, the claim(s) recites “in response to receiving the request, analyze the body temperature data relative to a body temperature threshold” which amounts to an abstract idea (mental process).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
- The claims fail to outline an improvement to the technical field.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception with a particular machine.
- The claims fail to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or a combination of elements, integrates judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“a first temperature sensor within the passenger compartment, the first temperature sensor configured to determine a body temperature of the at least one passenger within the passenger compartment;”
“a transmitter configured to wirelessly transmit body temperature data determined by the first temperature sensor in response to receiving a request from a client device separate from the vehicle.”
“output a result of the analysis of the body temperature to the client device.”
The additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they seem to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they pertain merely to insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities and generic postsolution activity.
Furthermore, compartments, temperature sensors and transmitters are general fields of use and servers, inputs, outputs, and processors are generic computer elements used to perform generic computer functions and don’t add significantly more and are well-understood, routine, and previously known to the industry.
None of these limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because the claim taken as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of receiving passenger compartment occupant temperature data to evaluate occupant for an illness and does not purport to improve the functioning of the signal processing, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of a generic signal processing does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent claims 8-11 also do not add significantly more to the exception as they merely add details to the extrasolution data gathering activity, add details to the mental steps, and add details to the generic postsolution activity.
Regarding Claim 16, the claim(s) recites “analyze the body temperature data relative to a body temperature threshold, wherein the body temperature threshold is associated with an elevated body temperature” which amounts to an abstract idea (mental process).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
- The claims fail to outline an improvement to the technical field.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment.
- The claims fail to apply the judicial exception with a particular machine.
- The claims fail to effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element or a combination of elements, integrates judicial exception into a practical application.
For this part of the 101 analysis, the following additional limitations are considered:
“receive, from the client device, a request for a body temperature analysis of the at least one passenger of the vehicle;”
“in response to receiving the request, retrieve, from the vehicle, body temperature data associated with at least one passenger within the vehicle;”
“output, to the client device, a result of the analysis of the body temperature data.”
The additional elements are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they seem to merely generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they pertain merely to insignificant extrasolution data gathering activities and generic postsolution activity.
Furthermore, servers, inputs, outputs, and processors are generic computer elements used to perform generic computer functions and don’t add significantly more and are well-understood, routine, and previously known to the industry.
None of these limitations, considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because the claim taken as a whole, does not amount to significantly more than the underlying abstract idea of receiving passenger compartment occupant temperature data to evaluate occupant for an illness and does not purport to improve the functioning of the signal processing, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of a generic signal processing does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent claims 17, and 19-20 also do not add significantly more to the exception as they merely add details to the extrasolution data gathering activity, add details to the mental steps, and add details to the generic postsolution activity.
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(s) 1, 4, 7-9, 11, 16, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katti et al (US 2022/0371604) (“Katti”) in view of Vardaro et al (US 2019/0391581) (“Vardaro”) and further in view of Mardirossian (US 2019/0053469).
Regarding Claim 1, Katti teaches a system for use in health screening passengers of a vehicle (Abstract, Fig. 1, [0012], [0018], [0020]), the system comprising:
a first temperature sensor positioned at least partially within a passenger compartment of the vehicle, the first temperature sensor configured to determine a body temperature of the at least one passenger within the passenger compartment ([0018] first temperature sensor / thermal sensor of the pollutant detection system 107 is mounted within cabin area / passenger compartment to determine a body temperature of the at least one passenger / occupant);
a transmitter configured to wirelessly transmit body temperature data determined by the first temperature sensor ([0018] body temperature data may be sent to a server computer 120 for analysis, [0015], [0037] where communication with a server computer 120 is performed by a wireless transmitter of wireless communication system 109); and
a server comprising:
a processor in communication with (i) a memory (Fig. 1, [0015], [0018] server computer 120, [0070] where processors analysis is enabled by memory based instructions), (ii) the transmitter ([0015], [0018], [0037]), and (iii) a client device within the vehicle ([0052] personal communication devices of an occupant may communicate with the vehicle and relay determined health risks to other personal communication devices in the vehicle. Because the health risk is determined by the service computer, the server computer is in communication with client devices, through the vehicle’s computer, when an occupant has the appropriate application), the processor programmed to:
retrieve, from the vehicle, body temperature data associated with at least one passenger within the vehicle ([0018]);
analyze the body temperature data relative to a body temperature threshold, wherein the body temperature threshold is associated with an elevated body temperature ([0018]); and
output, to the client device, a result of the analysis of the body temperature data ([0052]),
where the vehicle may be an autonomous vehicle ([0012], [0040]),
Katti fails to teach the client device being separate from the vehicle.
However Vardaro teaches a passenger health monitoring system (Abstract) where autonomous vehicles specifically benefit from health monitoring of passengers due to variability in passenger states using the vehicle and experiencing the autonomous ride ([0003], [0057]-[0060]) and teaches monitoring comprising passenger temperatures ([0029], [0069]), the monitoring performed remotely with a client device ([0024], [0027], [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the autonomous vehicle monitoring of Katti to further include remote health monitoring of passengers as taught by Vardaro as this enables the vehicle to have a diagnostic utility during travel and enables dispatch of medical attention in a streamlined manner.
Yet their combined efforts fail to teach the processor programmed to
receive, from the client device, a request for a body temperature analysis of the at least one passenger; and
in response to receiving the request, retrieve from the first temperature sensor associated with the vehicle, body temperature data associated with at least one passenger within the vehicle.
However Mardirossian teaches a remote health monitoring of a passenger (Abstract, [0007], [0019]) where the monitored value is a temperature of the passenger ([0007], [0019]), and the monitoring of the subject can be done on either a periodic, continuous, or requested basis ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the vehicle-based health monitoring of Katti and Vardado to further include the use of requests for passenger body temperature data as taught by Mardirossian as a way to provide user flexibility to mitigate the drawbacks of continuous monitoring (power and memory intensive) and periodic monitoring (increased potential to miss a patient emergency).
Regarding Claim 4, Katti, Vardaro, and Mardirossian teach the system in accordance with Claim 1, and Katti teaches wherein the first temperature sensor is configured to determine a body temperature of the at least one passenger at least one of en route or upon arrival at destination of the vehicle (See Claim 1 Rejection, the system operating when a subject is in the vehicle is considered to be determining while the subject is en route to a destination).
Regarding Claim 7, Katti teaches a vehicle (Abstract, Fig. 1, [0012] vehicle 105, [0018], [0020]), comprising:
a passenger compartment ([0018] cabin area of the vehicle);
a first temperature sensor within the passenger compartment, the first temperature sensor configured to determine a body temperature of at least one passenger within the passenger compartment ([0018] first temperature sensor / thermal sensor of the pollutant detection system 107 is mounted within cabin area / passenger compartment to determine a body temperature of the at least one passenger / occupant); and
a transmitter configured to wirelessly transmit body temperature data determined by the first temperature sensor ([0018] body temperature data may be sent to a server computer 120 for analysis, [0015], [0037] where communication with a server computer 120 is performed by a wireless transmitter of wireless communication system 109) to a client device within the vehicle ([0052]).
Katti fails to teach the transmission being done in response to receiving a request from a client device separate from the vehicle.
However Vardaro teaches a passenger health monitoring system (Abstract) where autonomous vehicles specifically benefit from health monitoring of passengers due to variability in passenger states using the vehicle and experiencing the autonomous ride ([0003], [0057]-[0060]) and teaches monitoring comprising passenger temperatures ([0029], [0069]), the monitoring performed remotely with a client device ([0024], [0027], [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the autonomous vehicle monitoring of Katti to further include remote health monitoring of passengers as taught by Vardaro as this enables the vehicle to have a diagnostic utility during travel and enables dispatch of medical attention in a streamlined manner.
Yet their combined efforts fail to teach the transmission being done in response to receiving a request from the client device.
However Mardirossian teaches a remote health monitoring of a passenger (Abstract, [0007], [0019]) where the monitored value is a temperature of the passenger ([0007], [0019]), and the monitoring of the subject can be done on either a periodic, continuous, or requested basis ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the vehicle-based health monitoring of Katti and Vardado to further include the use of requests for passenger body temperature data as taught by Mardirossian as a way to provide user flexibility to mitigate the drawbacks of continuous monitoring (power and memory intensive) and periodic monitoring (increased potential to miss a patient emergency).
Regarding Claim 8, Katti, Vardaro, and Mardirossian teach the vehicle in accordance with Claim 7, and Katti teaches the vehicle further comprising a processor ([0018] local vehicle sanitizer system 108 or server computer 120) configured to:
In response to receiving the request, analyze the body temperature of the at least one passenger relative to a body temperature threshold (See Claim 7 Rejection, and [0018]); and
output a result of the analysis of the body temperature to the client device ([0018] a result of the analysis is output to a client device / the vehicle sanitizer system 108 of the vehicle to perform user-safety related actions).
Regarding Claim 9, Katti, Vardaro, and Mardirossian teach the vehicle in accordance with Claim 8, and Katti further teaches the vehicle further comprising an interior display within the passenger compartment, wherein the interior display is configured to display the result of the analysis ([0018] instructions provided by infotainment system 113, [0038], [0046] health information itself may be presented by infotainment system 113).
Regarding Claim 11, Katti, Vardaro, and Mardirossian teach the vehicle in accordance with Claim 8, and Katti further teaches wherein the processor outputs the result of the analysis before any interaction between a passenger of the vehicle and a third party individual occurs ([0040] a health condition of the user may require sanitization, [0048] a third party who has requested to ride share is notified of a need to sanitize the vehicle, a result of the analysis, and that there will be a delay in pick-up or a new car will be sent to pick them up. This occurs before the third party can enter said vehicle and interact with the ill passenger).
Regarding Claim 16, Katti teaches a system for use in health screening passengers of a vehicle, the system comprising:
a processor in communication with a memory ([0018], [0051] computers / processors used for analysis of the data, [0070] where processors analysis is enabled by memory based instructions) and a client device within the vehicle ([0052] personal communication devices of an occupant may communicate with the vehicle and relay determined health risks to other personal communication devices in the vehicle. Because the health risk is determined by the service computer, the server computer is in communication with client devices, through the vehicle’s computer, when an occupant has the appropriate application), the processor programmed to:
retrieve, from the vehicle, body temperature data associated with at least one passenger within the vehicle ([0018]);
analyze the body temperature data relative to a body temperature threshold, wherein the body temperature threshold is associated with an elevated body temperature ([0018]); and
output, to the client device, a result of the analysis of the body temperature data ([0052]).
Katti fails to teach the client device being separate from the vehicle.
However Vardaro teaches a passenger health monitoring system (Abstract) where autonomous vehicles specifically benefit from health monitoring of passengers due to variability in passenger states using the vehicle and experiencing the autonomous ride ([0003], [0057]-[0060]) and teaches monitoring comprising passenger temperatures ([0029], [0069]), the monitoring performed remotely with a client device ([0024], [0027], [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the autonomous vehicle monitoring of Katti to further include remote health monitoring of passengers as taught by Vardaro as this enables the vehicle to have a diagnostic utility during travel and enables dispatch of medical attention in a streamlined manner.
Yet their combined efforts fail to teach the processor programmed to
receive, from the client device, a request for a body temperature analysis of the at least one passenger; and
in response to receiving the request, retrieve from the first temperature sensor associated with the vehicle, body temperature data associated with at least one passenger within the vehicle.
However Mardirossian teaches a remote health monitoring of a passenger (Abstract, [0007], [0019]) where the monitored value is a temperature of the passenger ([0007], [0019]), and the monitoring of the subject can be done on either a periodic, continuous, or requested basis ([0034]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the vehicle-based health monitoring of Katti and Vardado to further include the use of requests for passenger body temperature data as taught by Mardirossian as a way to provide user flexibility to mitigate the drawbacks of continuous monitoring (power and memory intensive) and periodic monitoring (increased potential to miss a patient emergency).
Regarding Claim 19, Katti, Vardaro, and Mardirossian teach the system in accordance with Claim 16, wherein the processor is further configured to:
store the body temperature data in the memory (Fig. 2, [0050] the computer performing the analysis includes a database, in which sensor data may be stored for future analysis); and
retrieve and analyze the body temperature data upon receiving the request from the client device (See Claim 16 Rejection).
Regarding Claim 20, Katti, Vardaro, and Mardirossian teach the system in accordance with Claim 16, further comprising the vehicle (Abstract, Fig. 1, [0012] vehicle 105, [0018], [0020]) that comprises:
a passenger compartment ([0018] cabin area of the vehicle);
a first temperature sensor within the passenger compartment, the first temperature sensor configured to determine a body temperature of the at least one passenger within the passenger compartment ([0018] first temperature sensor / thermal sensor of the pollutant detection system 107 is mounted within cabin area / passenger compartment to determine a body temperature of the at least one passenger / occupant); and
a transmitter configured to wirelessly transmit the body temperature data, determined by the first temperature sensor, to the processor ([0018] body temperature data may be sent to a computer for analysis, [0015], [0027], [0037], [0051] where communication with a computer is performed by a wireless transmitter of wireless communication system 109 when analysis is done at a server computer 120 or personal communication device 111).
Claim(s) 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katti in view of Vardaro and further in view of Mardirossian and further in view of Ireri (US 2017/0240022).
Regarding Claim 2, while Katti, Vardaro, and Mardirossian teach the system in accordance with Claim 1, their combined efforts fail to teach wherein the first temperature sensor is configured to automatically initiate a body temperature scan of the at least one passenger based on a change in an operational status of the vehicle.
However Ireri teaches a vehicle passenger temperature monitoring (Abstract), comprising automatically initiating a body temperature scan of the at least one passenger based on a change in an operational status of the vehicle ([0018], [0034] an illness detection routine is activated after opening and closing of the door).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the temperature monitoring of Katti, Vardaro, and Mardirossian to be based on a change in an operational status of the vehicle as taught by Ireri as this ensures the detection of an illness occurs and corresponding preventative action / occupant warning can be provided as quickly as possible.
Regarding Claim 3, Katti, Vardaro, Mardirossian, and Ireri teach the system in accordance with Claim 2, further comprising a processor configured to monitor at least one of opening or closing a door of the vehicle, starting or shutting off of the vehicle, a location of the vehicle relative to a destination, or a transmission of the vehicle to determine the change in the operational status (See Claim 2 Rejection, monitors opening and closing of doors).
Regarding Claim 12, while Katti, Vardaro, and Mardirossian teach the vehicle in accordance with Claim 7, their combined efforts fail to teach wherein the first temperature sensor is configured to automatically initiate a body temperature scan of the at least one passenger based on a change in an operational status of the vehicle.
However Ireri teaches a vehicle passenger temperature monitoring (Abstract), comprising automatically initiating a body temperature scan of the at least one passenger based on a change in an operational status of the vehicle ([0018], [0034] an illness detection routine is activated after opening and closing of the door).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the temperature monitoring of Katti, Vardaro, and Mardirossian to be based on a change in an operational status of the vehicle as taught by Ireri as this ensures the detection of an illness occurs and corresponding preventative action / occupant warning can be provided as quickly as possible.
Regarding Claim 13, Katti, Vardaro, Mardirossian, and Ireri teach the vehicle in accordance with Claim 12 further comprising a processor configured to monitor at least one of opening or closing a door of the vehicle, starting or shutting off of the vehicle, a location of the vehicle relative to a destination, or a transmission of the vehicle to determine the change in the operational status (See Claim 12 Rejection, monitors opening and closing of doors).
Claim(s) 5 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katti in view of Vardaro and further in view of Mardirossian and further in view of Kundu (US 2018/0312167).
Regarding Claim 5, while Katti, Vardaro, and Mardirossian teach the system in accordance with Claim 1, their combined efforts fail to teach wherein the processor is further configured to output the result of the analysis to the client device via an application programming interface (API).
However Kundu teaches a vehicle-based health monitoring of an occupant (Abstract, [0015] respiration-based, but also may monitor temperature) wherein wireless communication to a secondary device may be done via an application programming interface (API) ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform the wireless communication over a network of Katti, Vardaro, and Mardirossian via an application programming interface as taught by Kundu as the application of a known technique for facilitating wireless communication modalities (Kundu: APIs) to the known wireless communication device (Katti: [0015] various wireless communication modalities) ready for improvement to yield predictable results of reliable wireless communication.
Regarding Claim 17, while Katti, Vardaro, and Mardirossian teach the system in accordance with Claim 16, their combined efforts fail to teach wherein the processor is further configured to output the result of the analysis to the client device via an application programming interface (API).
However Kundu teaches a vehicle-based health monitoring of an occupant (Abstract, [0015] respiration-based, but also may monitor temperature) wherein wireless communication to a secondary device may be done via an application programming interface (API) ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to perform the wireless communication over a network of Katti, Vardaro, and Mardirossian via an application programming interface as taught by Kundu as the application of a known technique for facilitating wireless communication modalities (Kundu: APIs) to the known wireless communication device (Katti: [0015] various wireless communication modalities) ready for improvement to yield predictable results of reliable wireless communication.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katti in view of Vardaro and further in view of Mardirossian and further in view of Chang et al (US 2013/0023738) (“Chang”)
Regarding Claim 10, while Katti, Vardaro, and Mardirossian teach the vehicle in accordance with Claim 9, and Katti further teaches wherein the vehicle is configured to initiate actions based on a manual input received at the interior display ([0038]), their combined efforts fail to teach the action being wherein the first temperature sensor is configured to initiate a body temperature scan of the at least one passenger.
However Chang teaches a health inspecting system (Abstract) wherein a health inspection, including a temperature scan, is initiated based on a manual input of a display ([0025]-[0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the temperature sensing of Katti, Vardaro, and Mardirossian to begin in response to a manual input as taught by Chang as a way to provide an occupant the ability to confirm an elevated temperature that may not rise to the level of a health risk. Further, this would be just another example request could make on the GUI of Katti ([0038]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katti in view of Vardaro and further in view of Mardirossian and further in view of Shayne et al (US 2021/0251568) (“Shayne”).
Regarding Claim 14, while Katti, Vardaro, and Mardirossian teach the vehicle in accordance with Claim 12, their combined efforts fail to teach wherein the first temperature sensor is configured to initiate the body temperature scan on a delay after the change in the operational status is detected.
However Shayne teaches a temperature-based subject monitoring system (Abstract) wherein a temperature sensor is configured to initiate the body temperature scan on a delay after the change in the patient state is detected ([0062], [0065]-[0066] a subject’s temperature readings may be affected by ambient environment, thus a latency period may be used, starting from when a subject gets in bed to ensure body temperature is accurate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the temperature sensing of Katti, Vardaro, and Mardirossian to be initiated after a latency period as Shayne teaches that environmental temperature can affect temperature readings of a subject and time should be given for the subject’s temperature to equalize to a new environment (i.e. in their bed). When applying this knowledge to Katti, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the relevance of giving time for temperature to equalize when going from one patient state (Katti: outside of the vehicle, Shayne: out of bed) to another (Katti: inside the vehicle, Shayne: in bed). Furthermore, using a latency period before measuring temperature can save power by reducing unnecessary sensing of inaccurate data.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katti in view of Vardaro and further in view of Mardirossian and further in view of Shayne and further in view of Paetsch et al (US 2018/0035947) (“Paetsch”).
Regarding Claim 15, while Katti, Vardaro, Mardirossian, and Shayne teach the vehicle in accordance with Claim 14, and Shayne teaches a patient health monitoring comprising a first body temperature sensor and a second ambient temperature sensor (See Claim 14 Rejection, [0062] first body temperature sensor is a thermal camera, and a second ambient temperature sensor is a thermometer), and Katti teaches that infrared imaging may be done for the exterior surroundings of the vehicle ([0035]), their combined efforts fail to teach wherein the first temperature sensor is configured to initiate the body temperature scan on the delay if the ambient temperature is outside of an ambient temperature threshold range.
However Paetsch teaches a temperature monitoring of a subject ([0010]) wherein a temperature sensor begins a waiting period after a temperature-based threshold judges a transition in sensor state ([0010], [0032] transition state between ambient state and in-ear state can be characterized by a threshold, [0033] when transition state is detected, a waiting period applied to sensor before measurements would be considered true body temperature measurements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the temperature sensing after a delay of Katti and Shayne to be based on a relevant threshold range for ambient temperature as Paetsch teaches that different temperatures typically characterize different environments ([0032]). Further, Shayne teaches that latency is related to the difference between an ambient temperature and subject’s final resting body temperature ([0065]). One of ordinary skill in the art would realize at certain temperatures, the difference between the ambient temperature and a predicted subject’s final resting body temperature is minimal. Thus a threshold distinguishing between ambient temperatures that will require a longer period for a subject to equalize in temperature and ambient temperatures that the subject will quickly equalize to, would be useful to ensure all data gathered is representative of the subject’s actual body temperature.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 5/27/2025 with respect to the 35 USC 112(f) interpretations of Claims 1 and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The interpretations are obviated.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 5/27/2025 with respect to the claim objections of Claims 3, 9, 13, and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections are withdrawn. Examiner notes that objection of Claim 20 remains as it was not amended in corresponding manner to Claims 3, 9, 13, and 15.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 5/27/2025 with respect to the 35 USC 112(b) rejections of Claims 1 and 3 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 5/27/2025 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejections have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks that the claims should not fall under the Mental Process grouping as the claims recite transmitting, modifying, and receiving electronic signals, which cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the rejection, the determined mental process is specifically limited to the analysis step of body temperature. The limitations identified by Applicant are additional elements of the claim that Examiner views as extra-solution data gathering activity. That is to say, these elements outline steps necessary to derive the data for a Mental Process to evaluate and are not posited by Examiner to be performed by the human mind.
Applicant argues on page 9 of the Remarks that the claims reflect a practical application by showing an improvement to another technology. Specifically, the claims improve the functioning of vehicle technology by leveraging sensors of a vehicle to enable remote health evaluations. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As a note, at least for independent claim 1, there is no requirement for the outlined sensors to be of a vehicle. The claim could be fulfilled by a wearable sensor and thus the improvement to “vehicle technology” is non-existent. Second, if the improvement is by leveraging the use of sensors of vehicle, Applicant’s claims should specify how sensors already found in vehicles are being leveraged to provide the temperature measurement. Overall, if we are to understand the improvement in relation to vehicle-based health monitoring by incorporating relevant sensors into a vehicle and utilizing them for remote health measurements, Examiner will direct attention to the references of
DeJullis (US 2014/0015971)
Ireri (US 2017/0240022)
Mardirossian (US 2019/0053469)
Kundu (US 2018/0312167)
The references outline remote monitoring of subjects, enabling a predetermination of passenger health. Thus, Applicant should be highlighting how the remote monitoring is specifically an improvement in relation to similar art as those listed above.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the Remarks that the claims clearly recite more than well-understood, routine, or conventional functionality of vehicles. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Vehicle-based health monitoring of passengers has been shown multiple times in the art and thus could be considered a well-understood functionality to add to vehicles.
Therefore, the rejection stands.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 5/27/2025 with respect to the 35 USC 102(a)(1) rejection has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Katti, Vardaro, and Mardirossian.
Consequently, claims dependent on claims 1, 7, and 16 remain rejected as well.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DeJuliis (US 2014/0015971) is directed to remote monitoring of a passenger in a vehicle, the remote monitoring including temperature.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAIRO H PORTILLO whose telephone number is (571)272-1073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:15 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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571)272-5596. 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.
/JAIRO H. PORTILLO/
Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791