DETAIL OFFICE ACTIONS
The United States Patent & Trademark Office appreciates the response filed for the current application that is submitted on 07/18/2025. The United States Patent & Trademark Office reviewed the following documents submitted and has made the following comments below.
Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments on 07/18/2025. The Examiner acknowledges the amendment and has reviewed the claims accordingly.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 10/25/2022. The drawings are
acceptable.
Applicant Arguments:
In regards to Argument 1, Applicant/s state/s that Yabuki teaches an
Examiner’s Responses:
In response to Argument 1, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner states although the cited reference(s) is/are different from the invention disclosed by Applicant, the language of Applicant's claims is sufficiently broad to reasonably read on the cited reference(s). The Examiner finds that when reading the claim, one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret that detecting a first candidate abnormality in a first image of a hand, and detecting a second candidate abnormality in a second image of the hand at the same region, then determining a type of the abnormality on the hand based on difference in shape between first candidate abnormality and second abnormality, any type of reference that is relevant to the claim can be applied. It is noted that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))." MPEP §2123. Counsel's assertion that Yabuki does not determine the state of a hand of a person based on images before and after handwashing is merely an argument unaccompanied by evidentiary support, and, thus, is insufficient to rebut Examiner's finding of obviousness. Arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). MPEP §§ 2145, 2129, 2144.03, 716.01(c). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. Therefore, the Examiner will maintain Yabuki as a reference.
In addition, The Examiner made a proper determination of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103, and also provided an appropriate supporting rationale in view of the decision by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). The Examiner’s rational are based on the Office’s current understanding of the law, and are believed to be fully consistent with the binding precedent of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Examiner supported the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 via making the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious by citing the specific areas in the prior art references. Further the Examiner, clearly stating the modification of the inventions, supported the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 by making the analysis explicit. Last, the Examiner did not make conclusory statements. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Therefore, the Examiner has established a proper 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection with Kusaba in view of Menendez, and further in view of Yabuki, which is disclosed in detail below.
Finally, regarding the applicant’s arguments stating Yabuki is not analogous art. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Bigio, a reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art. Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. This is consistent with the Supreme Court's instruction in KSR that "[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. The Federal Circuit reads KSR as "direct[ing] us to construe the scope of analogous art broadly" because "familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary purposes, and a person of ordinary skill often will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 1238, 95 USPQ2d 1525, 1530 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 402, 127 S. Ct. at 1727). MPEP 2141.01. Also, in Medtronic, Inc. v. Cardiac Pacemakers, 721 F.2d 1563, 220 USPQ 97 (Fed. Cir. 1983) the patent claims were drawn to a cardiac pacemaker which comprised, among other components, a runaway inhibitor means for preventing a pacemaker malfunction from causing pulses to be applied at too high a frequency. Two references disclosed circuits used in high power, high frequency devices which inhibited the runaway of pulses from a pulse source. The court held that one of ordinary skill in the pacemaker designer art faced with a rate-limiting problem would look to the solutions of others faced with rate limiting problems, and therefore the references were in an analogous art. MPEP 2141.01.
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) 1-2, 5, 7-8 and 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kusaba (US20220370674A1, filed 2018) in view of
Menendez (Elisa Menendez, “UV images show why it’s so important to wash hands amid coronavirus crisis” - https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/17/uv-images-show-important-wash-hands-amid-coronavirus-crisis-12409389/#, published 03/17/2020, hereinafter, Menendez), and further in view of
Yabuki (US20130216095A1, published 08/22/2013, hereinafter, Yabuki).
CLAIM 1
In regards to Claim 1, Kusaba teaches a handwash monitoring system (Kusaba, Abstract: “a hygiene evaluation apparatus capable of precisely evaluating a hygiene state of hands”) comprising: an imaging device (Kusaba, Abstract: “a captured image acquiring unit”); and a processor (Kusaba, FIG. 13, ¶ [0112]: “computer system”)
Kusaba does not explicitly disclose a first image captured by the imaging device before handwashing, a second image captured by the imaging device after handwashing, and comparing first image and second image.
Menedez is in the same field of art of hand hygiene evaluation. Further, Menedez teaches a first image captured by the imaging device before handwashing (Menedez, see FIG with caption “Images taken under a UV light show”, with annotations below, hand image (1). Menedez teaches captured image of a hand before washing), a second image captured by the imaging device after handwashing (Menedez, see FIG with caption “Images taken under a UV light show”, with annotations below, hand image (2) and (3). Menedez teaches captured images of a hand after washing), and comparing first image and second image to determine a state of cleanliness of the hand. (Menedez, see FIG with caption “Images taken under a UV light show”, with annotations below. Menedez shows the cleanliness of a hand washing after 30 seconds with soap is much cleaner than an unwashed hand, based on the amount of the luminated glow gem in 2 images.)
PNG
media_image1.png
942
1621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kusaba by simply substitute Kusaba’s method of evaluating hand hygiene with Menedez’s method of evaluating hand hygiene, to make a hand hygiene evaluation system that can illustrate the result visually; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to make the substitution since Kusaba teaches a method of evaluating hand hygiene, and Menedez also teaches a method of evaluating hand hygiene (Menedez: “A series of images taken under a special UV light of a person’s hands before and after washing demonstrate exactly why the practice is so important amid the Covid-19 outbreak”).
The combination of Kusaba and Menedez does not explicitly disclose detecting a first candidate abnormality existing in a hand of a user from a first image captured by the imaging device before handwashing, and detect inga second candidate abnormality existing in the hand of the user from a second image captured by the imaging device after the handwashing, and determining a type of an abnormality on the hand of the user based on a difference between a shape of the first candidate abnormality and a shape of the second candidate abnormality wherein the first candidate abnormality and the second candidate abnormality are detected from an identical region.
Yabuki is in the same field of art of comparing hand information. Further, Yabuki teaches detecting a first candidate abnormality existing in a hand of a user (Yabuki, ¶ [0083]: "The abnormality information extraction unit extracts abnormality information which is different from usual biometric information…") from a first image captured by the imaging device before an event (Yabuki, ¶ [0081]: " The image acquisition unit 42 can capture an image of the palm of the user's hand by the sensor-unit-embedded mouse 24 … the sensor-unit-embedded mouse 24 capture, at different imaging timings, a plurality of images …" Yabuki teaches multiple images of user’s palm are captured at different times), and detecting a second candidate abnormality existing in the hand of the user (Yabuki, ¶ [0083]: "The abnormality information extraction unit extracts abnormality information which is different from usual biometric information…") from a second image captured by the imaging device after an event (Yabuki, ¶ [0081]: " The image acquisition unit 42 can capture an image of the palm of the user's hand by the sensor-unit-embedded mouse 24 … the sensor-unit-embedded mouse 24 capture, at different imaging timings, a plurality of images …" Yabuki teaches multiple images of user’s palm are captured at different times), and determining a type of an abnormality on the hand of the user (Yabuki, ¶ [0113-0126]. Yabuki teaches determining whether an abnormal region in user’s hand is a wound or not, by comparing multiple images) based on a difference between a shape of the first candidate abnormality and a shape of the second candidate abnormality (Yabuki, FIG 13, ¶ [0113-0126]: “in the case where the overlap rate between the circumscribed rectangle 51 and the circumscribed rectangle 56 is substantially small, the wound determination unit 44 determines that the wound 52 and the wound 57 are not a common abnormal portion.” The Examiner notes overlap rate between 2 shape is a type of shape comparison) wherein the first candidate abnormality and the second candidate abnormality are detected from an identical region. (Yabuki, [0113-0126]: “The wound determination unit searches for abnormal portions of a common region among the images”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kusaba and Menedez by simply substituting Menedez’s method of comparing hand information manually with Yabuki’s method of comparing hand information automatically, to make a system that is able to compare hand information automatically; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to make the substitution since Menedez teaches comparing hand information, and Yabuki teaches a method of comparing hand information (Yabuki, ¶ [0004]: “comparing biometric information obtained at the time of registration with biometric information obtained at the time of authentication”).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
CLAIM 2
In regards to Claim 2, the combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki teaches the system of Claim 1. In addition, the combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki teaches generating an instruction related to handwashing (Kusaba, ¶ [0072]: “Accordingly, hygiene states of hands of users can be seen in time series, and thus a user whose handwashing or hand sanitization continues to be inadequate can be urged to perform them properly, and a user whose handwashing or the like continues to be proper can be commended for that act.”) based on the determined type of the abnormality. (Yabuki, ¶ [0113-0126], Yabuki teaches determining if the abnormality is a wound or not)
CLAIM 5
In regards to Claim 5, the combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki teaches the system of Claim 2. In addition, the combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki teaches when the first candidate abnormality and the second candidate abnormality are detected from an identical region and a shape of the first candidate abnormality and a shape of the second candidate abnormality are different from each other (Yabuki, FIG 13, ¶ [0113-0126]: “in the case where the overlap rate between the circumscribed rectangle 51 and the circumscribed rectangle 56 is substantially small, the wound determination unit 44 determines that the wound 52 and the wound 57 are not a common abnormal portion.” The Examiner notes overlap rate between 2 shape is a type of shape comparison), the processor instructs the user to further perform handwashing. (Kusaba, ¶ [0072]: “Accordingly, hygiene states of hands of users can be seen in time series, and thus a user whose handwashing or hand sanitization continues to be inadequate can be urged to perform them properly”, Kusaba teaches instruction could be provided based on user’s hygiene score)
CLAIM 7
In regards to Claim 7, the combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki teaches the system of Claim 5. In addition, the combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki teaches the processor instructs the user on a handwash operation to be performed by the user (Kusaba, ¶ [0072]: “Accordingly, hygiene states of hands of users can be seen in time series, and thus a user whose handwashing or hand sanitization continues to be inadequate can be urged to perform them properly”, Kusaba teaches instruction could be provided based on user’s hygiene score) based on a position of the second candidate abnormality. (Kusaba, ¶ [0008]: “it is also possible that the calculating unit calculates the score, using a proportion of an area of a region to which a substance is stuck with respect to an area of the hand.”, Kusaba teaches the hygiene score of each user is calculated based on information of the dirty region, including its position)
CLAIM 8
In regards to Claim 8, the combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki teaches the system of Claim 2. In addition, the combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki teaches the processor instructs the user on a handwash operation flow (Kusaba, ¶ [0072]: “Accordingly, hygiene states of hands of users can be seen in time series, and thus a user whose handwashing or hand sanitization continues to be inadequate can be urged to perform them properly”, Kusaba teaches instruction could be provided based on user’s hygiene score) based on a color component of the first candidate abnormality or the second candidate abnormality. (Yabuki, ¶ [0103-0105]: “The abnormality information extraction unit 43 performs a determination of the color range on the acquired object image … by determining whether the ratio of RGB components in the predetermined area of the object image is in a preset normal region NDR”. Yabuki teaches determining an area in image has normal color range, or has abnormal color range)
CLAIM 12
In regards to Claim 12, Kusaba teaches a handwash monitoring system (Kusaba, Abstract: “a hygiene evaluation apparatus capable of precisely evaluating a hygiene state of hands”) comprising: an imaging device (Kusaba, Abstract: “a captured image acquiring unit”); and a processor (Kusaba, FIG. 13, ¶ [0112]: “computer system”), a storage (Kusaba, ¶ [0047]: “The captured image acquired by the captured image acquiring unit 11 may be stored in an unshown storage medium.”)
Kusaba does not explicitly disclose a first image captured by the imaging device before handwashing, a second image captured by the imaging device after handwashing, and comparing first image and second image.
Menedez is in the same field of art of hand hygiene evaluation. Further, Menedez teaches a first image captured by the imaging device before handwashing (Menedez, see FIG with caption “Images taken under a UV light show”, with annotations below, hand image (1). Menedez teaches captured image of a hand before washing), a second image captured by the imaging device after handwashing (Menedez, see FIG with caption “Images taken under a UV light show”, with annotations below, hand image (2) and (3). Menedez teaches captured images of a hand after washing), and comparing first image and second image to determine a state of cleanliness of the hand. (Menedez, see FIG with caption “Images taken under a UV light show”, with annotations below. Menedez shows the cleanliness of a hand washing after 30 seconds with soap is much cleaner than an unwashed hand, based on
PNG
media_image1.png
942
1621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the amount of the luminated glow gem in 2 images.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kusaba by simply substitute Kusaba’s method of evaluating hand hygiene with Menedez’s method of evaluating hand hygiene, to make a hand hygiene evaluation system that can illustrate the result visually; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to make the substitution since Kusaba teaches a method of evaluating hand hygiene, and Menedez also teaches a method of evaluating hand hygiene (Menedez: “A series of images taken under a special UV light of a person’s hands before and after washing demonstrate exactly why the practice is so important amid the Covid-19 outbreak”).
The combination of Kusaba and Menedez does not explicitly disclose a reference image representing a past state of a hand of a user; detecting a first candidate abnormality existing in a hand of a user from a first image captured by the imaging device before handwashing, and detect inga second candidate abnormality existing in the hand of the user from a second image captured by the imaging device after the handwashing, and determining a type of an abnormality on the hand of the user based on a difference between a shape of the first candidate abnormality and a shape of the second candidate abnormality wherein the first candidate abnormality and the second candidate abnormality are detected from an identical region.
Yabuki is in the same field of art of comparing hand information. Further, Yabuki teaches a reference image representing a past state of a hand of a user (Yabuki, ¶ [0081]: " The image acquisition unit 42 can capture an image of the palm of the user's hand by the sensor-unit-embedded mouse 24 … the sensor-unit-embedded mouse 24 capture, at different imaging timings, a plurality of images …" Yabuki teaches multiple images of user’s palm are captured at different times); detecting a first candidate abnormality existing in a hand of a user from the reference image (Yabuki, ¶ [0083]: "The abnormality information extraction unit extracts abnormality information which is different from usual biometric information…"), and detecting a second candidate abnormality existing in the hand of the user (Yabuki, ¶ [0083]: "The abnormality information extraction unit extracts abnormality information which is different from usual biometric information…") from a second image captured by the imaging device after an event (Yabuki, ¶ [0081]: " The image acquisition unit 42 can capture an image of the palm of the user's hand by the sensor-unit-embedded mouse 24 … the sensor-unit-embedded mouse 24 capture, at different imaging timings, a plurality of images …" Yabuki teaches multiple images of user’s palm are captured at different times), and determining a type of an abnormality on the hand of the user (Yabuki, ¶ [0113-0126]. Yabuki teaches determining whether an abnormal region in user’s hand is a wound or not, by comparing multiple images) based on a difference between a shape of the first candidate abnormality and a shape of the second candidate abnormality (Yabuki, FIG 13, ¶ [0113-0126]: “in the case where the overlap rate between the circumscribed rectangle 51 and the circumscribed rectangle 56 is substantially small, the wound determination unit 44 determines that the wound 52 and the wound 57 are not a common abnormal portion.” The Examiner notes overlap rate between 2 shape is a type of shape comparison) wherein the first candidate abnormality and the second candidate abnormality are detected from an identical region. (Yabuki, [0113-0126]: “The wound determination unit searches for abnormal portions of a common region among the images”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kusaba and Menedez by simply substituting Menedez’s method of comparing hand information manually with Yabuki’s method of comparing hand information automatically, to make a system that is able to compare hand information automatically; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to make the substitution since Menedez teaches comparing hand information, and Yabuki teaches a method of comparing hand information (Yabuki, ¶ [0004]: “comparing biometric information obtained at the time of registration with biometric information obtained at the time of authentication”).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
CLAIM 13
In regards to Claim 13, Kusaba teaches a handwash monitoring method (Kusaba, ¶ [0029]: “a hygiene evaluation method”) performed by a computer (Kusaba, ¶ [0113]: “the computer system 900”).
Kusaba does not explicitly disclose a first image captured by the imaging device before handwashing, a second image captured by the imaging device after handwashing, and comparing first image and second image.
Menedez is in the same field of art of hand hygiene evaluation. Further, Menedez teaches a first image captured by the imaging device before handwashing (Menedez, see FIG with caption “Images taken under a UV light show”, with annotations below, hand image (1). Menedez teaches captured image of a hand before washing), a second image captured by the imaging device after handwashing (Menedez, see FIG with caption “Images taken under a UV light show”, with annotations below, hand image (2) and (3). Menedez teaches captured images of a hand after washing), and comparing first image and second image to determine a state of cleanliness of the hand. (Menedez, see FIG with caption “Images taken under a UV light show”, with annotations below. Menedez shows the cleanliness of a hand washing after 30 seconds with soap is much cleaner than an unwashed hand, based on the amount of the luminated glow gem in 2 images.
PNG
media_image1.png
942
1621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kusaba by simply substitute Kusaba’s method of evaluating hand hygiene with Menedez’s method of evaluating hand hygiene, to make a hand hygiene evaluation system that can illustrate the result visually; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to make the substitution since Kusaba teaches a method of evaluating hand hygiene, and Menedez also teaches a method of evaluating hand hygiene (Menedez: “A series of images taken under a special UV light of a person’s hands before and after washing demonstrate exactly why the practice is so important amid the Covid-19 outbreak”).
The combination of Kusaba and Menedez does not explicitly disclose detecting a first candidate abnormality existing in a hand of a user from a first image captured by the imaging device before handwashing, and detect inga second candidate abnormality existing in the hand of the user from a second image captured by the imaging device after the handwashing, and determining a type of an abnormality on the hand of the user based on a difference between a shape of the first candidate abnormality and a shape of the second candidate abnormality wherein the first candidate abnormality and the second candidate abnormality are detected from an identical region.
Yabuki is in the same field of art of comparing hand information. Further, Yabuki teaches detecting a first candidate abnormality existing in a hand of a user (Yabuki, ¶ [0083]: "The abnormality information extraction unit extracts abnormality information which is different from usual biometric information…") from a first image captured by the imaging device before an event (Yabuki, ¶ [0081]: " The image acquisition unit 42 can capture an image of the palm of the user's hand by the sensor-unit-embedded mouse 24 … the sensor-unit-embedded mouse 24 capture, at different imaging timings, a plurality of images …" Yabuki teaches multiple images of user’s palm are captured at different times), and detecting a second candidate abnormality existing in the hand of the user (Yabuki, ¶ [0083]: "The abnormality information extraction unit extracts abnormality information which is different from usual biometric information…") from a second image captured by the imaging device after an event (Yabuki, ¶ [0081]: " The image acquisition unit 42 can capture an image of the palm of the user's hand by the sensor-unit-embedded mouse 24 … the sensor-unit-embedded mouse 24 capture, at different imaging timings, a plurality of images …" Yabuki teaches multiple images of user’s palm are captured at different times), and determining a type of an abnormality on the hand of the user (Yabuki, ¶ [0113-0126]. Yabuki teaches determining whether an abnormal region in user’s hand is a wound or not, by comparing multiple images) based on a difference between a shape of the first candidate abnormality and a shape of the second candidate abnormality (Yabuki, FIG 13, ¶ [0113-0126]: “in the case where the overlap rate between the circumscribed rectangle 51 and the circumscribed rectangle 56 is substantially small, the wound determination unit 44 determines that the wound 52 and the wound 57 are not a common abnormal portion.” The Examiner notes overlap rate between 2 shapes is a type of shape comparison) wherein the first candidate abnormality and the second candidate abnormality are detected from an identical region. (Yabuki, [0113-0126]: “The wound determination unit searches for abnormal portions of a common region among the images”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kusaba and Menedez by simply substituting Menedez’s method of comparing hand information manually with Yabuki’s method of comparing hand information automatically, to make a system that is able to compare hand information automatically; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to make the substitution since Menedez teaches comparing hand information, and Yabuki teaches a method of comparing hand information (Yabuki, ¶ [0004]: “comparing biometric information obtained at the time of registration with biometric information obtained at the time of authentication”).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
CLAIM 14
In regards to Claim 14, Kusaba teaches a computer-readable non-transitory recording medium (Kusaba, Fig. 13, ROM and RAM) having stored therein a handwash monitoring program (Kusaba, ¶ [0107]: “Software that realizes the hygiene evaluation apparatuses 1, 2, and 4 according to the foregoing embodiments is a program”) for causing a processor (Kusaba, Fig. 13, MPU - (micro processing unit)) to execute a process.
Kusaba does not explicitly disclose a first image captured by the imaging device before handwashing, a second image captured by the imaging device after handwashing, and comparing first image and second image.
Menedez is in the same field of art of hand hygiene evaluation. Further, Menedez teaches a first image captured by the imaging device before handwashing (Menedez, see FIG with caption “Images taken under a UV light show”, with annotations below, hand image (1). Menedez teaches captured image of a hand before washing), a second image captured by the imaging device after handwashing (Menedez, see FIG with caption “Images taken under a UV light show”, with annotations below, hand image (2) and (3). Menedez teaches captured images of a hand after washing), and comparing first image and second image to determine a state of cleanliness of the hand. (Menedez, see FIG with caption “Images taken under a UV light show”, with annotations below. Menedez shows the cleanliness of a hand washing after 30 seconds with soap is much cleaner than an unwashed hand, based on the amount of the luminated glow gem in 2 images.
PNG
media_image1.png
942
1621
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kusaba by simply substitute Kusaba’s method of evaluating hand hygiene with Menedez’s method of evaluating hand hygiene, to make a hand hygiene evaluation system that can illustrate the result visually; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to make the substitution since Kusaba teaches a method of evaluating hand hygiene, and Menedez also teaches a method of evaluating hand hygiene (Menedez: “A series of images taken under a special UV light of a person’s hands before and after washing demonstrate exactly why the practice is so important amid the Covid-19 outbreak”).
The combination of Kusaba and Menedez does not explicitly disclose detecting a first candidate abnormality existing in a hand of a user from a first image captured by the imaging device before handwashing, and detect inga second candidate abnormality existing in the hand of the user from a second image captured by the imaging device after the handwashing, and determining a type of an abnormality on the hand of the user based on a difference between a shape of the first candidate abnormality and a shape of the second candidate abnormality wherein the first candidate abnormality and the second candidate abnormality are detected from an identical region.
Yabuki is in the same field of art of comparing hand information. Further, Yabuki teaches detecting a first candidate abnormality existing in a hand of a user (Yabuki, ¶ [0083]: "The abnormality information extraction unit extracts abnormality information which is different from usual biometric information…") from a first image captured by the imaging device before an event (Yabuki, ¶ [0081]: " The image acquisition unit 42 can capture an image of the palm of the user's hand by the sensor-unit-embedded mouse 24 … the sensor-unit-embedded mouse 24 capture, at different imaging timings, a plurality of images …" Yabuki teaches multiple images of user’s palm are captured at different times), and detecting a second candidate abnormality existing in the hand of the user (Yabuki, ¶ [0083]: "The abnormality information extraction unit extracts abnormality information which is different from usual biometric information…") from a second image captured by the imaging device after an event (Yabuki, ¶ [0081]: " The image acquisition unit 42 can capture an image of the palm of the user's hand by the sensor-unit-embedded mouse 24 … the sensor-unit-embedded mouse 24 capture, at different imaging timings, a plurality of images …" Yabuki teaches multiple images of user’s palm are captured at different times), and determining a type of an abnormality on the hand of the user (Yabuki, ¶ [0113-0126]. Yabuki teaches determining whether an abnormal region in user’s hand is a wound or not, by comparing multiple images) based on a difference between a shape of the first candidate abnormality and a shape of the second candidate abnormality (Yabuki, FIG 13, ¶ [0113-0126]: “in the case where the overlap rate between the circumscribed rectangle 51 and the circumscribed rectangle 56 is substantially small, the wound determination unit 44 determines that the wound 52 and the wound 57 are not a common abnormal portion.” The Examiner notes overlap rate between 2 shapes is a type of shape comparison) wherein the first candidate abnormality and the second candidate abnormality are detected from an identical region. (Yabuki, [0113-0126]: “The wound determination unit searches for abnormal portions of a common region among the images”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kusaba and Menedez by simply substituting Menedez’s method of comparing hand information manually with Yabuki’s method of comparing hand information automatically, to make a system that is able to compare hand information automatically; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to make the substitution since Menedez teaches comparing hand information, and Yabuki teaches a method of comparing hand information (Yabuki, ¶ [0004]: “comparing biometric information obtained at the time of registration with biometric information obtained at the time of authentication”).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
CLAIM 15
In regards to Claim 15, the combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki teaches the system of Claim 1. In addition, the combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki teaches detects the first candidate abnormality based on a color of the first candidate abnormality (Yabuki, ¶ [0103-0105]: “The abnormality information extraction unit 43 performs a determination of the color range on the acquired object image … by determining whether the ratio of RGB components in the predetermined area of the object image is in a preset normal region NDR”. Yabuki teaches determining an area in image has normal color range, or has abnormal color range) and detects the second candidate abnormality based on a color of the second candidate abnormality. (Yabuki, ¶ [0103-0105]: “The abnormality information extraction unit 43 performs a determination of the color range on the acquired object image … by determining whether the ratio of RGB components in the predetermined area of the object image is in a preset normal region NDR”. Yabuki teaches determining an area in image has normal color range, or has abnormal color range)
CLAIM 16
In regards to Claim 16, the combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki teaches the system of Claim 1. In addition, the combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki teaches determines the type of the abnormality on the hand of the user in response to determining whether the shape of the second candidate abnormality is different from the shape of the first candidate abnormality. (Yabuki, FIG 13, ¶ [0113-0126]: “in the case where the overlap rate between the circumscribed rectangle 51 and the circumscribed rectangle 56 is substantially small, the wound determination unit 44 determines that the wound 52 and the wound 57 are not a common abnormal portion.” The Examiner notes overlap rate between 2 shape is a type of shape comparison)
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusaba in view of Menedez, and further in view of Yabuki, and further in view of Kim et al. (US20160006941A1, published 01/07/2016, hereinafter, Kim)
CLAIM 3
In regards to Claim 3, the combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki teaches the system of Claim 1. In addition, the combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki teaches a storage (Kusaba, ¶ [0047]: “The captured image acquired by the captured image acquiring unit 11 may be stored in an unshown storage medium.”), and image of the hand of the user (Yabuki, ¶ [0081]: " The image acquisition unit 42 can capture an image of the palm of the user's hand”)
The combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki does not explicitly disclose a reference image representing a past state of the body part of the user, wherein the processor detects the first candidate abnormality by comparing the reference image with the first image.
Kim is in the same field of art of analyzing human body part image. Further, Kim teaches a reference image representing a past state of the body part of the user (Kim, ¶ [0502]: “The reference image may be a previous face image of the user, which is captured before a point of time the face image was captured”), wherein the processor detects the first candidate abnormality by comparing the reference image with the first image. (Kim, ¶ [0588]: “The device 100 may compare the face image and the reference image to extract the difference from the face image. For example, information about whether a number of pimples is increased in the face region, whether a face color is darkened, or whether lips are drier compared to the reference image may be extracted.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki simply substitute the Yabuki’s method to detect abnormalities on human body part with Kim’s reference image based method to detect abnormalities, to make a system that can detect abnormalities on human body part based on reference image; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to make the substitution since Yabuki teaches a method to detect abnormalities on human body part, and Kim also teaches a method to detect abnormalities on human body part (Kim, ¶ [0588]: “The device 100 may compare the face image and the reference image to extract the difference from the face image. For example, information about whether a number of pimples is increased in the face region, whether a face color is darkened, or whether lips are drier compared to the reference image may be extracted.”).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
CLAIM 4
In regards to Claim 4, the combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki teaches the system of Claim 1. In addition, the combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki teaches a storage (Kusaba, ¶ [0047]: “The captured image acquired by the captured image acquiring unit 11 may be stored in an unshown storage medium.”), and image of the hand of the user (Yabuki, ¶ [0081]: " The image acquisition unit 42 can capture an image of the palm of the user's hand”)
The combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki does not explicitly disclose a reference image representing a past state of the body part of the user, wherein the processor detects the second candidate abnormality by comparing the reference image with the first image.
Kim is in the same field of art of analyzing human body part image. Further, Kim teaches a reference image representing a past state of the body part of the user (Kim, ¶ [0502]: “The reference image may be a previous face image of the user, which is captured before a point of time the face image was captured”), wherein the processor detects the second candidate abnormality by comparing the reference image with the first image. (Kim, ¶ [0588]: “The device 100 may compare the face image and the reference image to extract the difference from the face image. For example, information about whether a number of pimples is increased in the face region, whether a face color is darkened, or whether lips are drier compared to the reference image may be extracted.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki simply substitute the Yabuki’s method to detect abnormalities on human body part with Kim’s reference image based method to detect abnormalities, to make a system that can detect abnormalities on human body part based on reference image; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to make the substitution since Yabuki teaches a method to detect abnormalities on human body part, and Kim also teaches a method to detect abnormalities on human body part (Kim, ¶ [0588]: “The device 100 may compare the face image and the reference image to extract the difference from the face image. For example, information about whether a number of pimples is increased in the face region, whether a face color is darkened, or whether lips are drier compared to the reference image may be extracted.”).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
CLAIM 6
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusaba in view of Menedez, and further in view of Yabuki, and further in view of Gaisser et al. (US20170032657A1, hereinafter, Gaisser).
In regards to Claim 6, the combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki teaches the system of Claim 5.
The combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki does not explicitly disclose the processor instructs the user to change a detergent for washing hands.
Gaisser is in the same field of art of handwash monitoring system. Further, Gaisser teaches the processor instructs the user to change a detergent for washing hands. (Gaisser, ¶ [0058]: “According to various embodiments, a sanitizer dispenser 10 and a soap dispenser 11 are provided. It should be understood that “sanitizer” and “soap” are mere examples; the dispensers 10 and 11 are capable of dispensing two different cleaning agents”; ¶ [0103]: “the microprocessor may disable the pump in dispenser 10 containing sanitizer, window aperture may instruct the user that “Soap Is Required” and the acoustic indicator may sound a unique tone associated with “Soap Required””)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki by incorporating multiple detergent dispensers system that is taught by Gaisser, to make a handwash monitoring system that is able to instruct users to change detergent based on certain predetermined condition; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since among its several aspects, the present invention recognizes there is a need for a system that can handle a variety of scenarios in assisting users to meet hand-wash compliance requirements (Gaisser, ¶ [0028]: “A further object of this disclosure is to provide a dispensing apparatus which may be adapted to assist persons in meeting hand-wash compliance requirements.”).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
CLAIM 9
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusaba in view of Menedez, and further in view of Yabuki, and further in view of Vogel (US20210290152A1, filed 03/19/2020, hereinafter, Vogel).
In regards to Claim 9, the combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki teaches the system of Claim 2. In addition, the combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki teach when the first candidate abnormality and the second candidate abnormality are detected from an identical region and a shape of the first candidate abnormality and a shape of the second candidate abnormality are identical or substantially identical to each other (Yabuki, FIG 13, ¶ [0113-0126]: “in the case where the overlap rate between the circumscribed rectangle 51 and the circumscribed rectangle 56 is substantially small, the wound determination unit 44 determines that the wound 52 and the wound 57 are not a common abnormal portion.” The Examiner notes overlap rate between 2 shape is a type of shape comparison), determines that the second candidate abnormality is a wound on the hand of the user. (Yabuki, ¶ [0122]. Yabuki teaches after comparing shapes of the common abnormal region, the wound pattern of the abnormal region is matched with a known wound pattern in a database, to determine if the abnormal region is a wound or not)
The combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki does not explicitly disclose instructs the user to perform treatment of the wound.
Vogel is in the same field of art of processing human body images. Further, Vogel teaches the processor determines that the second candidate abnormality is a wound on the hand of the user (Vogel, ¶ [0089], Figure 21; Figure 3, with annotations, see below), and the processor instructs the user to perform treatment of the wound. (Vogel, ¶ [0096], Figure 26;
PNG
media_image2.png
1826
1683
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 3, with annotations, see below)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki by incorporating a method to instruct user about wound treatment that is taught by Vogel, to make a handwash monitoring system that is able to instruct user about wound treatment; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Vogel’s method could provide the best suited treatment for each patent and improve the wound recovery (Vogel, ¶ [0055]: “While there are multiple advantages of such customization and tailoring of treatment to individual patients, arguably one of the greatest advantages is the potential to improve the extent of wound recovery and the speed with which the wound recovers”).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
CLAIM 17
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kusaba in view of Menedez, and further in view of Yabuki, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN-110705447-A, published 01/17/2020, a translated copy of this document is attached, hereinafter, Wang).
In regards to Claim 17, the combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki teaches the system of Claim 1.
The combination of Kusaba, Menedez and Yabuki does not explicitly disclose determining an attribute of the first candidate abnormality based on a position and a shape of the first candidate abnormality.
Wang is in the same field of art of determining a state of a hand by image processing. Further, Wang teaches determining an attribute (Wang, ¶ [0107-0112]: “determining whether the hand image of the target person includes a wound area”. Wang teaches determining whether an abnormal area is a wound, and determining characteristics of the wound, such as shape, position or color, …) of the first candidate abnormality (Wang, ¶ [0081-0084]: “judging whether the hand image of the target person contains an abnormal area… determine whether there are abnormal areas such as wounds and tattoos”. Wang teaches detecting an abnormal area on the hand, the abnormal area could be wounds or tattoos) based on a position (Wang, ¶ [0112]: “The actual level of the wound area in the current hand image of the target person is calculated by analyzing at least one of the actual area of the wound area, the coordinates of the actual position, …”) and a shape (Wang, ¶ [0109]: “the wound area is selected according to an adapted pre-selection box, such as a rectangular selection box or a circle selection b