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 .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to application dated 9/29/2022. It is noted that application is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/012249 filed 3/24/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
Information disclosure statements dated 11/21/24 and 5/25/2022 have been acknowledged and considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. In particular, the limitation “identify, as a first contact person that possibly contacts the infected person, at least one target person that stays in a stay area in which the infected person stays in at least a part of a time period during which the infected person stays in the stay area from a plurality of target persons based on the infection information and a history information that is generated based on a plurality of target person images that indicate the plurality of target persons, respectively” is unclear in scope and grammatical meaning. It is unclear which phrases modify “target person,” how the recited time period is applied, and how the history information generated from the target person images is used in the identification. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be informed with reasonable certainty of the metes and bounds of the claim. Dependent claims 2-9 incorporate the deficiencies of the independent claim from which they depend upon. For purposes of prior-art analysis, claim 1 is reasonably interpreted as requiring identification of one or more target persons who were present in the same stay area as the infected person during at least an overlapping portion of time, based on infection information and image-derived history information. However, claim 1 remains indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the exact grammatical relationships among the recited phrases are unclear.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-9 are drawn to an apparatus for identifying a target person, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claim 10 is drawn to a method for identifying a target person, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claim 11 is drawn to a non-transitory medium for identifying a target person, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. article of manufacture).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain an infection information relating to an infected person that catches an infection disease; and,
identify, as a first contact person that possibly contacts the infected person, at least one target person that stays in a stay area in which the infected person stays in at least a part of a time period during which the infected person stays in the stay area from a plurality of target persons based on the infection information and a history information that is generated based on a plurality of target person images that indicate the plurality of target persons, respectively.
These recited underlined limitations fall within the "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities" grouping of abstract ideas as it relates to certain methods of organizing human activity –managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II).
The claims encompass collecting information about an infected person and other persons; evaluating temporal and spatial history information; and classifying one or more persons as possible contacts. These features as drafted and detailed above, are steps that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite steps for organizing human interactions. The claimed invention is directed to managing and prioritizing persons based on infection exposure status. This is a method of managing interactions between a contact person and an infected person (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions -- see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II). That is other than reciting “information processing apparatus”; “memory”; and “processor” language, nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed between people or by a person. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people or managing personal behavior or relationships then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
An information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain an infection information relating to an infected person that catches an infection disease; and,
identify, as a first contact person that possibly contacts the infected person, at least one target person that stays in a stay area in which the infected person stays in at least a part of a time period during which the infected person stays in the stay area from a plurality of target persons based on the infection information and a history information that is generated based on a plurality of target person images that indicate the plurality of target persons, respectively.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
The additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
the recitations performing the functions information processing apparatus amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraph [0023] of the present Specification.
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h)– for example, the recitation of information processing apparatus merely limits the abstract idea the environment of a computer.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception and generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use and the same analysis applies with regards to whether they amount to “significantly more.” Therefore, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the at least one abstract idea.
As per claims 10 and 11, the claim teaches limitations similar to claim 1 and the same abstract idea (“certain methods of organizing human activity”) for the same reasons as stated above. Claim 10 teaches an information processing to perform the functionality taught by claim 1. Claim 11 teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium to store instructions executable by the processor to perform the functionality taught by claim 1. These limitations of a processor and memory as generally recited, amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h). Independent claims 10 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea.
Furthermore, for similar reasons as representative independent claim 1, analogous independent claims 10 and 11 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor add significantly more.
The following dependent claims further the define the abstract idea or are also directed to an abstract idea itself:
In relation to claims 2-7, and 9 these claims specify identifying second or third contact persons, using time-after-departure criteria, and use of prior body-temperature measurement information and permitting entry into a restriction area when specified conditions are satisfied; and obtaining a thermal image; making a determination based on the thermal image; and output a notification which are a certain methods of organizing human activity, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people or managing personal behavior or relationships
In relation to claim 8, this claim specifies making a determination that a captured person is making an impersonation based on the temperature fluctuation from a thermal image which is a mental process as it is an evaluation that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind.
The dependent claims further do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-11 are ineligible under 35 USC §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.
Claims 1-6, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robell (2021/0365445) in view of Dang (CN113241135).
As per claim 1, Robell teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (Robell; para. [0092]) and
at least one processor (Robell; para. [0091]) configured to execute the instructions to:
obtain an infection information relating to an infected person that catches an infection disease (Robell; para. [0018] The embodiments allow contact tracers to perform automated searches for a specific case subject's (e.g., an infected individual) potential contact history based on the UID entry/exit scans discussed previously); and,
identify, as a first contact person that possibly contacts the infected person based on the infection information and a history information (Robell; para. [0018] to enable contact tracers to identify potential contacts of a case subject; paras. [0023], [0024] teaches contact tracing based on information about infected individuals and their contacts)
Robell does not expressly teach: at least one target person that stays in a stay area in which the infected person stays in at least a part of a time period during which the infected person stays in the stay area from a plurality of target persons based on the infection information and a history information that is generated based on a plurality of target person images that indicate the plurality of target persons, respectively. However this is old and well known in the art as evidenced by Dang. In particular Dang pg. 5 generally teaches searching for potential infected persons in a public place. Dang further teaches:
“that stays in a stay area in which the infected person stays” (Dang pg. 5 teaches determining time nodes and position information of confirmed personnel performing activities in public places, then searching for potential infected persons using video monitoring equipment in that public place.
“in at least a part of a time period during which the infected person stays in the stay area” (Dang pg. 5 teaches using the time nodes of the confirmed person and matched position information, then tracking potential infected persons based on those time/location parameters.)
“history information that is generated based on a plurality of target person images that indicate the plurality of target persons, respectively” (Dang pg. 5 teaches searching potential infected persons by means of video frame data provided by video monitoring equipment, and further teaches potential infectors are tracked based on multi-target tracking technology.)
It would have been obvious to combine the infected-person contact-tracing framework of Robell with the video-based time/location tracking of Dang in order to automate and improve identification of persons who shared the same place during relevant times with an infected person. Both references are in the same infectious-disease contact-tracing field and pursue the same goal of identifying possible exposures using person-history data. The substitution of video-derived presence history for other forms of contact-history input would have been a predictable use of known tracking technology.
As per claim 2, Robell in view of Dang does not expressly teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to identify, as a second contact person that is possibly affected by the infection disease, at least one target person that stays in that stays area in at least a part of a time period before a predetermined first time elapses from a time at which the infected person leaves the stay area from the plurality of target persons based on the infection information and the history information.
Claim 2 teaches substantially similar limitations as claim 1 but identifies a second contact person. Robell para. [0017] teaches identifying contact tracing participants. Robell in view of Dang pg. 5 teaches tracking time-based presence in the area. Extending the search window to person(s) entering the area shortly after the infected person leaves would have been an obvious temporal-risk variant, especially in the epidemic/public-place context where recent occupancy of a location is an expected exposure factor. This is an obvious as a predictable modification of the time-window contact-tracing analysis already taught by the combined references.
As per claim 3, Robell in view of Dang does not expressly teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
set a contact level of the first contact person to the infected person to be a first level; and
set a contact level of the second contact person to the infected person to be a second level that indicates that a degree of a contact is lower than that of the first level.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would to modify the Robell in view of Dang teachings to teach these features. Robell para. [0018] teaches identifying individuals who had contact with infected individuals, i.e., selecting one or more contacts from a larger population of individuals. Dang pg. 5 likewise teaches searching for potential infected persons in a public place, which reads on identifying one or more persons from multiple tracked persons. Dang pg. 14 further teaches categorizing two types of contacts with an infected person. This reads on “setting a contact level” and risk stratification. It would have been obvious to assign different contact or risk levels to categories as this is a predictable refinement in contact-tracing systems and would have been motivated by the need to prioritize notifications, testing, or quarantine actions.
As per claim 4, Robell in view of Dang does not expressly teach the information processing apparatus according to claim2, wherein when a plurality of second contact persons that stays in the stay area in at least partially different time periods, respectively, are identified, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to (i) set a contact level of one second contact person, which stays in the stay area before a predetermined second time elapses from a time at which the infected person leaves the stay area, of the plurality of second contact persons to the infected person to be a third level, and (ii) set a contact level of another second contact person, which stays in the stay area after the second time elapses from the time at which the infected person leaves the stay area, of the plurality of second contact persons to the infected person to be a fourth level that indicates that a degree of a contact is lower than that of the third level.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would to modify the Robell in view of Dang teachings to teach these features. Dang teaches time-based tracking in public places, and Robell teaches contact-tracing analysis for infection control. It would have been obvious to further subdivide persons identified after departure of the infected person into finer temporal groupings and assign correspondingly different contact levels, because this is a predictable refinement of the same temporal risk-ranking approach already suggested by the combined references.
A per claim 5, Robell in view of Dang does not expressly teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to identify, as a third contact person that is possibly affected by the infection disease, at least one target person that stays in a near area that is near the stay area in at least a part of the time period during which the infected person stays in the stay area from the plurality of target persons based on the infection information and the history information.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would to modify the Robell in view of Dang teachings to teach these features. Dang, Abstract, teaches tracking persons in public places using video and position-related information. Given such location tracking, it would have been obvious to expand the exposure search from the same area to a nearby area in order to capture persons having a lower but still plausible degree of exposure. Such spatial broadening is a predictable variation of the same location-based contact-identification process.
As per claim 6, Robell in view of Dang does not expressly teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
set a contact level of the first contact person to the infected person to be a first level; and
set a contact level of the third contact person to the infected person to be a fifth level that indicates that a degree of a contact is lower than that of the first level.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art would to modify the Robell in view of Dang teachings to teach these features. For the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 3, once nearby-area persons are identified as a distinct exposure group, assigning them a lower contact level than same-area overlapping contacts would have been an obvious and predictable risk-prioritization rule.
Claims 10 and 11 repeat substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and the reasons for rejection are incorporated herein.
Subject Matter free from Prior Art
The closest prior art of record does not expressly teach the features taught by claims 7-9 --
[Claim 7] (Currently Amended) The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein when a measured target person a body temperature of which is already measured exists in the plurality of target persons, the history information further includes an information relating to a measured result of the body temperature of the measured target person and a time at which the body temperature of the measured target person is measured, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: (i)determine based on the history information whether or not a condition that the body temperature of the measured target person is already measured within a given time from a time at which the measured target person wants to enter a restriction area and the measured body temperature is lower than an allowable threshold value is satisfied, and (ii) permits the measured target person to enter the restriction area when the condition is satisfied even when the body temperature of the measured target person is not measured at a timing of an entry to the restriction area, when the measured target person wants to enter the restriction area to which the entry is not permitted unless the body temperature of the measured target person is measured.
[Claim 8] (Currently Amended) The information processing apparatus according to, claim1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to : obtain a thermal image from a thermal camera that is configured to generate the thermal image indicating a body temperature of a captured person by capturing an image of the captured, person; and determine that the captured person impersonates to be another person when a periodical fluctuation of the body temperature is not observed in at least one of a first part, which is covered by a mask, and a second part, which is adjacent to an outer edge of the mask, of a face of the captured person indicated by the thermal image.
[Claim 9] (Currently Amended) The information processing apparatus according to claim1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: obtain a thermal image from a thermal camera that is configured to generate the thermal image indicating a body temperature of a customer by capturing an image of the customer that stays in a restaurant; and determine based on the thermal image whether or not the customer wears a mask and output an information for notifying that the customer does not wear the mask when it is determined that the customer does not wear the mask even after a predetermined allowable time or more elapses from a time at which the customer finishes eating.
In light of other pending rejections, no final decision on patentability has been made.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (Wang S, Ding S, Xiong L. A New System for Surveillance and Digital Contact Tracing for COVID-19: Spatiotemporal Reporting Over Network and GPS. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2020 Jun 10;8(6):e19457. doi: 10.2196/19457. PMID: 32499212; PMCID: PMC7288904.), the closest non-patent literature of record, teaches the broad contact-tracing concept. It is specifically directed to surveillance and digital contact tracing for COVID-19 and is framed around spatiotemporal reporting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINH GIANG MICHELLE LE whose telephone number is (571)272-8207. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8:30am - 5:30pm PST.
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, JASON DUNHAM can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
LINH GIANG "MICHELLE" LE
PRIMARY EXAMINER
Art Unit 3686
/LINH GIANG LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686 4/15/2026
Prosecution Insights