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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 30 October 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. None of the cited documents were filed with filing of this IDS.
Claim Objections
Claims 20, 21, and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 20 calls for “obtaining a first image”; claim 15 calls for “obtaining a preview picture”. Is a picture different from an image? Is the image obtained by something other than the camera that is used to obtain a preview picture? What is the preview picture a preview of if not the first image? If they are the same time of data they should be referred to with the same descriptor, either of picture or image. The same issue is found in claim 26.
Claim 21 now recites “a memory a camera and an infrared sensor”; this is grammatically incorrect and should include at least a comma before “a camera” if not also a comma before “and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 15-34 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.
Claim 15 still recites “detecting a first operation”; it remains entirely unclear what performs this detection or how it might be detected, or what this operation might actually be, or what even performs this operation itself that would result in it being able to be detected. It is unclear if this detected “operation” is some other process that might be related to the method as claimed, or if the “operation” is a part of the method itself, whether the detected “operation” is something that is actively performed or merely involves the detection of some potential activity or other procedure. The complete lack of context for both the detection and the operation itself renders the scope of the claim unclear. A similar issue is found in the subsequent “detecting a second operation” and in both recitations of detecting first and second operations also found in claims 21, 27, 31; at best claim 21 indicates that a “device” might perform this task but does not identify what device performs it or provide any indication of how to do so.
Claim 15 now calls for “selecting a current temperature measurement mode in response to the detected first operation” – it is unclear if “current temperature measurement mode” refers to a mode that is already in use, that is, a current mode, or if “current temperature measurement mode” presents a descriptor of what mode will be in use after being selected. Clarification is required. This issue is also found in claim 21, 27, and 31.
Further, are the steps following selection of a “current temperature measurement mode” (that is, obtaining a picture and recognizing the picture) considered the steps of that mode itself, or are these performed in addition to having selected the “current temperature measurement mode”? If these are not part of the “current” mode, what is performed as part of being in this mode? Clarification is required. This issue is also found in claim 21, 27, and 31.
Claim 15 calls for “recognizing the previous picture of the target object… to obtain a first feature of the target object”. It is unclear how recognizing the picture itself might result in obtaining a feature. It is unclear if the intent is to recognize whether the picture is a valid picture or meets some criteria for acceptance, or to recognize some aspect of the contents of the picture, particularly as recognizing whether the picture is valid does not appear to result in obtaining anything other than a yes/no result of recognition. Clarification is required.
Claim 16 still calls for comparison of whether this distance matches a threshold – a threshold is generally used to define a target range, not a specific target point. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “threshold” in claim 16 is used by the claim to mean “target value,” while the accepted meaning is “a level, point, or value above which something is true or will take place and below which it is not or will not” (THRESHOLD Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term to provide a descriptor of how a single value can match a range as defined by a threshold. The same issues are found in claims 22, 28, 32.
Claim 18 now recites that “the determining of whether the second temperature value is normal is based further of the comparison result”; this is indefinite as it is unclear if this a typographical error or if terms have been omitted, as “based further of the comparison result” is, at best, grammatically incorrect, and potentially implies that the clause should refer to “based further [on some omitted characteristic] of the comparison result”. Clarification is required. The same issue is found in claims 24, 30, 34.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:
For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to a method, which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, independent claim 15 recites a method comprising detecting an “operation”; “selecting” a temperature measurement mode, obtaining a preview picture of a target with a camera, and recognizing some aspect of the target object picture to obtain a “feature” of the target object; detecting a second “operation”; measuring a temperature of the target object using an infrared sensor to obtain a first temperature value; obtaining a current system time and/or current “atmospheric environment” and using it to compensate the first temperature value to obtain a second temperature value; determining whether the second temperature is “normal” based on the first feature, and displaying the second temperature value and a prompt indicating the normality.
The dependent claims appear to be encompassed by the abstract idea of the independent claims since they merely indicate generating additional information (claims 16, 18, 20), outputting data (claim 20), processing the data (claims 17-19)
The underlined portions of the claims are an indication of elements additional to the abstract idea (to be considered below).
The claim elements may be summarized as the idea of obtaining, evaluating, and storing data to report biometric information; however, the Examiner notes that although this summary of the claims is provided, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim elements, both individually and as a whole (or ordered combination). This idea is within the following grouping(s) of subject matter:
Mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) as based on the observation and evaluation of an acquired picture and obtained temperature data to generate an evaluation result of normality of a calibrated temperature value – a judgment or opinion regarding normality.
Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea.
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 2, the above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception when evaluated individually and as a combination. The additional elements are that claim 16 recites a camera and an infrared sensor as apparently performing the acquisition of data, and the disembodied showing of a temperature and an indication. These additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (there is no medical disease or condition, much less a treatment or prophylaxis for one), implement the judicial exception with, or by using in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (there is no transformation/reduction of a physical article), and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generically linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claims appear to merely apply the judicial exception without even any link to a particular technological environment or field of use, and the additional elements appear to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as indicated above, are merely performing the insignificant extrasolution activity of data gathering via the camera and infrared sensor (See MPEP 2106.05(d), where determining the level of a biomarker by any means, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017) is held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional), where even some recited data gathering itself is wholly disembodied (“obtaining a second feature”), or performing the insignificant postsolution activity of outputting results (“displaying”) , again wholly disembodied (see MPEP 2106.05 - Presenting data, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 - another type of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity).
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, appear encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the idea itself; therefore the dependent claims do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.
Claims 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:
For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to a system, which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, independent claim 21 recites an electronic device comprising a memory, a camera, and an infrared sensor, the memory being configured to store code comprising instructions, the device being configured to, upon execution of the instructions, detect an “operation”; “select” a temperature measurement mode, obtain a preview picture of a target with a camera, and recognize some aspect of the target object picture to obtain a “feature” of the target object; detect a second “operation”; measure a temperature of the target object using an infrared sensor to obtain a first temperature value; obtain a current system time and/or current “atmospheric environment” and use it to compensate the first temperature value to obtain a second temperature value; determine whether the second temperature is “normal” based on the first feature, and display the second temperature value and a prompt indicating the normality.
The dependent claims appear to be encompassed by the abstract idea of the independent claims since they merely indicate generating additional information (claims 22, 24, 26), outputting data (claim 26), processing the data (claims 23-25)
The underlined portions of the claims are an indication of elements additional to the abstract idea (to be considered below).
The claim elements may be summarized as the idea of obtaining, evaluating, and storing data to report biometric information; however, the Examiner notes that although this summary of the claims is provided, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim elements, both individually and as a whole (or ordered combination). This idea is within the following grouping(s) of subject matter:
Mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) as based on the observation and evaluation of an acquired picture and obtained temperature data to generate an evaluation result of normality of a calibrated temperature value – a judgment or opinion regarding normality.
Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea.
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 2, the above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception when evaluated individually and as a combination. The additional elements are that claim 21 recites an electronic device as apparently performing the activities. These additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (there is no medical disease or condition, much less a treatment or prophylaxis for one), implement the judicial exception with, or by using in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (there is no transformation/reduction of a physical article), and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generically linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (memory configured to store computer program code).
The claims appear to merely apply the judicial exception, include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements appear to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as indicated above, are merely “[a]dding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp.” that MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) indicates to be insignificant activity.
There is no indication the Examiner can find in the record regarding any specialized computer hardware or other “inventive” components, but rather, the claims merely indicate computer components which appear to be generic components and therefore do not satisfy an inventive concept that would constitute “significantly more” with respect to eligibility.
Further, the recited camera and infrared sensor are not additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as indicated above, are merely performing the insignificant extrasolution activity of data gathering via the camera and infrared sensor (See MPEP 2106.05(d), where determining the level of a biomarker by any means, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017) is held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional), where even some recited data gathering itself is wholly disembodied (“obtaining a second feature”), or performing the insignificant postsolution activity of outputting results (“displaying”) , again wholly disembodied (see MPEP 2106.05 - Presenting data, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 - another type of activity that the courts have found to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity).
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, appear encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the idea itself or the computer components performing the abstract idea; therefore the dependent claims do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.
Claims 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:
For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to a system, which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, independent claim 27 recites instructions for a “device” stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the instructions comprising the steps of detecting an “operation”; “selecting” a temperature measurement mode, obtaining a preview picture of a target with a camera, and recognizing some aspect of the target object picture to obtain a “feature” of the target object; detecting a second “operation”; measuring a temperature of the target object using an infrared sensor to obtain a first temperature value; obtaining a current system time and/or current “atmospheric environment” and using it to compensate the first temperature value to obtain a second temperature value; determining whether the second temperature is “normal” based on the first feature, and displaying the second temperature value and a prompt indicating the normality.
The dependent claims appear to be encompassed by the abstract idea of the independent claims since they merely indicate generating additional information (claims 28, 30), and processing the data (claims 28-29)
The underlined portions of the claims are an indication of elements additional to the abstract idea (to be considered below).
The claim elements may be summarized as the idea of obtaining, evaluating, and storing data to report biometric information; however, the Examiner notes that although this summary of the claims is provided, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim elements, both individually and as a whole (or ordered combination). This idea is within the following grouping(s) of subject matter:
Mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) as based on the observation and evaluation of an acquired picture and obtained temperature data to generate an evaluation result of normality of a calibrated temperature value – a judgment or opinion regarding normality.
Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea.
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 2, the above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception when evaluated individually and as a combination. The additional elements are that claim 27 recites a computer readable storage medium as apparently storing information regarding these activities. These additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (there is no medical disease or condition, much less a treatment or prophylaxis for one), implement the judicial exception with, or by using in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (there is no transformation/reduction of a physical article), and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generically linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claims appear to merely apply the judicial exception, include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements appear to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as indicated above, are merely “[a]dding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp.” that MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) indicates to be insignificant activity.
There is no indication the Examiner can find in the record regarding any specialized computer hardware or other “inventive” components, but rather, the claims merely indicate computer components which appear to be generic components and therefore do not satisfy an inventive concept that would constitute “significantly more” with respect to eligibility.
Further, the referenced camera and infrared sensor are not positively recited as being part of the invention as claimed, as the invention as claimed is directed only to program code.
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, appear encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the idea itself or the computer components performing the abstract idea; therefore the dependent claims do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.
Claims 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:
For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to a system, which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, independent claim 31 recites a computer program product stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising instructions, the instructions when run on a computer comprising causing the computer to detect an “operation”; “select” a temperature measurement mode, obtain a preview picture of a target with a camera, and recognize some aspect of the target object picture to obtain a “feature” of the target object; detect a second “operation”; measure a temperature of the target object using an infrared sensor to obtain a first temperature value; obtain a current system time and/or current “atmospheric environment” and use it to compensate the first temperature value to obtain a second temperature value; determine whether the second temperature is “normal” based on the first feature, and display the second temperature value and a prompt indicating the normality.
The dependent claims appear to be encompassed by the abstract idea of the independent claims since they merely indicate generating additional information (claims 33), and processing the data (claims 32-34)
The underlined portions of the claims are an indication of elements additional to the abstract idea (to be considered below).
The claim elements may be summarized as the idea of obtaining, evaluating, and storing data to report biometric information; however, the Examiner notes that although this summary of the claims is provided, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim elements, both individually and as a whole (or ordered combination). This idea is within the following grouping(s) of subject matter:
Mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) as based on the observation and evaluation of an acquired picture and obtained temperature data to generate an evaluation result of normality of a calibrated temperature value – a judgment or opinion regarding normality.
Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea.
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 2, the above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception when evaluated individually and as a combination. The additional elements are that claim 27 recites a computer program product as apparently storing information regarding these activities. These additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (there is no medical disease or condition, much less a treatment or prophylaxis for one), implement the judicial exception with, or by using in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (there is no transformation/reduction of a physical article), and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generically linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claims appear to merely apply the judicial exception, include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements appear to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as indicated above, are merely “[a]dding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp.” that MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) indicates to be insignificant activity.
There is no indication the Examiner can find in the record regarding any specialized computer hardware or other “inventive” components, but rather, the claims merely indicate computer components which appear to be generic components and therefore do not satisfy an inventive concept that would constitute “significantly more” with respect to eligibility.
Further, the referenced computer, camera, and infrared sensor are not positively recited as being part of the invention as claimed, as the invention as claimed is directed only to program instructions.
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, appear encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the idea itself or the computer components performing the abstract idea; therefore the dependent claims do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.
Please see the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instruction materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes the latest guidance, memoranda, and update(s) for further information.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 18, 20-22, 24, 26-28, 30-32, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 2016/0113517).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses a body temperature measurement method comprising:
detecting a first “operation” (step 900);
selecting a “current temperature measurement mode” in response to the detection, obtaining a “preview” picture of a target object using a camera, and recognizing the preview picture of the target object to obtain a first feature of the target object (steps 910, 915, 925, 930; paragraph [0062]);
detecting a second “operation” (step 930);
measuring, using an infrared sensor, the temperature of the target object to obtain a first temperature value in response to the detected second “operation” (step 940; paragraph [0101]);
obtaining a second “feature” comprising one or more of a current system time or a current “atmospheric environment” (paragraph [0072]; per paragraph [0068] of the specification as filed an “atmospheric environment” is “represented by using a barometric pressure value”; paragraph [0153], “focus matching time”);
compensating the first temperature value using the second feature to obtain a second temperature value (paragraph [0166], “The temperature 1135 measured at the time of focus matching is determined as the final temperature for the object”; paragraph [0267]); and
determining, based on the first feature, whether the second temperature value is “normal” (paragraph [0082], [0206]), and
displaying the second temperature value (figure 14B, element 1440) and a prompt indicating whether the second temperature value is normal (figure 14B, element 1450).
Regarding claim 16, Lee further discloses obtaining a first distance from an “electronic device” used in the method to the target object, and comparing the first distance with a preset distance threshold (paragraph [0061]); and if the first distance does not match the preset distance threshold, displaying a first prompt (paragraph [0062], [0081]); or if the first distance matches the preset distance threshold, displaying a second prompt, the second prompt being different from the first prompt (paragraph [0116]).
Regarding claim 18, Lee further discloses performing facial recognition on the target object to obtain the identity of the target object, performing querying according to the identity of the target object to obtain a historical temperature value of the target object, and as part of determining whether the second temperature is normal further comparing the second temperature value with the historical temperature value to determine, based on a comparison result, whether the second temperature value is normal (paragraph [0197]).
Regarding claim 20, Lee further discloses obtaining a first image (abstract), and displaying the second temperature value on the first image (figure 14B).
Regarding claim 21, Lee discloses an electronic device comprising a memory (figure 23), a camera (element 180), and an infrared sensor (paragraph [0101]), wherein the memory is configured to store computer program code, the computer program code comprises instructions (paragraphs [0107]-[0108], and wherein when the instructions are executed that the device is configured to:
detect a first “operation” (step 900);
select a “current temperature mode” in response to the detection, obtain a “preview” picture of a target object using the camera, and recognize the preview picture to obtain a first feature of the target object (steps 910, 915, 925, 930);
detect a second “operation” (step 930);
measure, using the infrared sensor, the temperature of the target object to obtain a first temperature value (step 940);
obtain a second “feature” comprising one or more of a current system time or a current “atmospheric environment” (paragraph [0072]; per paragraph [0068] of the specification as filed an “atmospheric environment” is “represented by using a barometric pressure value”; paragraph [0153], “focus matching time”);
compensate the first temperature value using the second feature to obtain a second temperature value (paragraph [0166], “The temperature 1135 measured at the time of focus matching is determined as the final temperature for the object”; paragraph [0267]); and
determine, based on the first feature, whether the second temperature value is normal (paragraph [0082], [0206]), and
display the second temperature value (figure 14B, element 1440) and a prompt indicating whether the second temperature value is normal (figure 14B, element 1450).
Regarding claim 22, Lee further discloses that when the instructions are executed by the device, the device is further configured to obtain a first distance from the electronic device to the target object, and compare the first distance with a preset distance threshold (paragraph [0061]); and if the first distance does not match the preset distance threshold, to display a first prompt (paragraph [0062], [0081]); or if the first distance matches the preset distance threshold, display a second prompt, the second prompt being different from the first prompt (paragraph [0116]).
Regarding claim 24, Lee further discloses that when the instructions are executed by the device, the device is further configured to: perform facial recognition on the target object to obtain the identity of the target object, perform querying according to the identity of the target object to obtain a historical temperature value of the target object, and, as part of determining whether the second temperature value is normal, also compare the second temperature value with the historical temperature value to determine, based on a comparison result, whether the second temperature value is normal (paragraph [0197]).
Regarding claim 26, Lee further discloses that when the instructions are executed by the device, the device is further configured to obtain a first image (abstract), and display the second temperature value on the first image (figure 14B).
Regarding claim 27, Lee discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, comprising computer instructions (paragraphs [0107], [0108]), wherein when the computer instructions are run on a device, the device is configured to perform steps comprising:
detecting a first “operation” (step 900);
selecting a “current temperature measurement mode” in response to the detection, obtaining a “preview” picture of a target object using a camera, and recognizing the preview picture of the target object to obtain a first feature of the target object (steps 910, 915, 925, 930; paragraph [0062]);
detecting a second “operation” (step 930);
measuring, using an infrared sensor, the temperature of the target object to obtain a first temperature value in response to the detected second “operation” (step 940; paragraph [0101]);
obtaining a second “feature” comprising one or more of a current system time or a current “atmospheric environment” (paragraph [0072]; per paragraph [0068] of the specification as filed an “atmospheric environment” is “represented by using a barometric pressure value”; paragraph [0153], “focus matching time”);
compensating the first temperature value using the second feature to obtain a second temperature value (paragraph [0166], “The temperature 1135 measured at the time of focus matching is determined as the final temperature for the object”; paragraph [0267]); and
determining, based on the first feature, whether the second temperature value is “normal” (paragraph [0082], [0206]), and
displaying the second temperature value (figure 14B, element 1440) and a prompt indicating whether the second temperature value is normal (figure 14B, element 1450).
Regarding claim 28, Lee further discloses that the device is further configured to perform: obtaining a first distance from the device to the target object, and comparing the first distance with a preset distance threshold (paragraph [0061]); and if the first distance does not match the preset distance threshold, displaying a first prompt (paragraph [0062], [0081]); or if the first distance matches the preset distance threshold, displaying a second prompt, the second prompt being different from the first prompt (paragraph [0116]).
Regarding claim 30, Lee further discloses that the device is further configured to perform: performing facial recognition on the target object to obtain the identity of the target object, performing querying according to the identity of the target object to obtain a historical temperature value of the target object, and, as part of determining whether the second temperature value is normal, also comparing the second temperature value with the historical temperature value to determine, based on a comparison result, whether the second temperature value is normal (paragraph [0197]).
Regarding claim 31, Lee discloses a computer program product, stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and comprising instructions (paragraphs [0107]-[0108]) configured to, when the computer program product is run on a computer, cause the computer to perform steps comprising:
detecting a first “operation” (step 900);
selecting a “current temperature measurement mode” in response to the detection, obtaining a “preview” picture of a target object using a camera, and recognizing the preview picture of the target object to obtain a first feature of the target object (steps 910, 915, 925, 930; paragraph [0062]);
detecting a second “operation” (step 930);
measuring, using an infrared sensor, the temperature of the target object to obtain a first temperature value in response to the detected second “operation” (step 940; paragraph [0101]);
obtaining a second “feature” comprising one or more of a current system time or a current “atmospheric environment” (paragraph [0072]; per paragraph [0068] of the specification as filed an “atmospheric environment” is “represented by using a barometric pressure value”; paragraph [0153], “focus matching time”);
compensating the first temperature value using the second feature to obtain a second temperature value (paragraph [0166], “The temperature 1135 measured at the time of focus matching is determined as the final temperature for the object”; paragraph [0267]); and
determining, based on the first feature, whether the second temperature value is “normal” (paragraph [0082], [0206]), and
displaying the second temperature value (figure 14B, element 1440) and a prompt indicating whether the second temperature value is normal (figure 14B, element 1450).
Regarding claim 32, Lee further discloses that the computer is further configured to perform: obtaining a first distance from some unspecified device involved in one of the steps to the target object, and comparing the first distance with a preset distance threshold (paragraph [0061]); and if the first distance does not match the preset distance threshold, displaying a first prompt (paragraph [0062], [0081]); or if the first distance matches the preset distance threshold, displaying a second prompt, the second prompt being different from the first prompt (paragraph [0116]).
Regarding claim 34, Lee further discloses that the computer is further configured to perform: performing facial recognition on the target object to obtain the identity of the target object, performing querying according to the identity of the target object to obtain a historical temperature value of the target object, and, as part of determining whether the second temperature value is normal, also comparing the second temperature value with the historical temperature value to determine, based on a comparison result, whether the second temperature value is normal (paragraph [0197]).
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.
Claim(s) 17, 23, 29, 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Zhao (US 2020/0359971).
Lee further discloses storing the second temperature value (paragraph [0096]), but does not explicitly disclose associating the second temperature value with an identity of the target object. Zhao teaches body temperature measurement comprising associating a temperature value with an identity of a measured subject (paragraph [0079]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have followed Lee and associated the second temperature value with an identity of the target object, as taught by Zhao, in order to ensure accurate record-keeping and enable tracking of the condition over time.
Claim(s) 19 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Sham (US 2008/0018480).
Lee does not explicitly set forth details of determining whether the second temperature value is “normal”; Sham teaches body temperature measurement which comprises determining whether a temperature value is “normal”, where the determination of normal comprises performing querying based on a first feature recognized in a target object to obtain a preset temperature threshold corresponding to the first feature, comparing the temperature value with the preset temperature threshold, and determining, based on a comparison result, whether the temperature value is normal (paragraph [0024], [0027]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was file to have followed Lee and determined whether the second temperature value is “normal” by performing querying based on a first feature recognized in a target object to obtain a preset temperature threshold corresponding to the first feature, comparing the temperature value with the preset temperature threshold, and determining, based on a comparison result, whether the temperature value is normal, as taught by Sham in order to ensure use of an appropriate range for the subject.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the IDS, as noted above, 37 CFR 1.198 requires any IDS to be filed with a list of all documents, a legible copy of each foreign patent or publication, an explanation of relevance, and a copy of translation of non-English documents. The IDS filed 30 October 2025 does not include the required copies of each foreign patent or publication such that these cannot be considered.
Regarding the rejections under 112, the Examiner notes that “detecting an operation” is not “clear on its face” as it does not provide any indicator of what an operation is or how it might be detected. Breadth in a claim is permissible if the scope can be determined; in the present instance there is no indication whatsoever of what is considered to be an operation or what the criteria might be for something to be considered an operation, nor is there any indication of how this might be determined particularly as it is not clear what is being observed or evaluated in order to make such a determination, such that the scope of the claim is entirely indefinite.
Similarly, Applicant’s remarks provide no clarity as to how or why a “current temperature measurement mode” is selected or how it relates to any other part of the claim; again, the issue is not breadth but indefiniteness, as there is no indication of what this mode is or how it is selected or even how it might be performed or otherwise operated, such that the scope of what is being claimed has not clear bounds and is thus indefinite.
Regarding the use of the term “threshold”, the issue is not whether the term threshold can be used to represent either of a range that would normally be defined by a single value limit or the single value limit itself, but how any single given value can be determined as matching the threshold, particularly when the cited passage appears to be referring to the measured distance as being above or below a threshold value when discussing “matching” and might have a translation issue in the use of the term matching.
Regarding claim 18, as noted above, the phrase “further of the comparison result” has only raised new issues.
Regarding the rejections under 101, Applicant initially argues that the claims as presented do not recite a mental process because an infrared sensor and a camera are involved in the method as a whole; as noted above, these generic measurement devices recited at a high level of generality are recited only for the purposes of extrasolution data gathering and are additional to the identified abstract idea itself, such that they do not alter the actual recited abstract idea being a mental process.
Applicant next argues that the claims present a practical improvement to technology in that accuracy of a temperature measurement value can be increased; the cited passages allegedly supporting this disclosure of a practical application merely state that the method as a whole can result in improved accuracy, without identifying any specific aspect of the invention as claimed that results in this alleged potential improvement. Still further, the theoretical “improvement to technology” must be provided by one of the additional elements, here generic sensing and computing devices, not the abstract idea itself, such that generally alleging that the nonspecific “compensating” and unidentified process of determining normality results in improved accuracy does not satisfy the requirement that the practical application be provided by an additional element.
Applicant further argues that the invention as claimed solves a technical problem that arises when temperatures of two objects are measured; as the temperature of only one object is measured as part of the invention as claimed these remarks are moot.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of the claim(s) under Lee have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant argues only that Lee does not disclose the newly added limitation of the second feature being a current system time or a current “atmospheric environment”; as Lee does disclose finding such a feature and using it to compensate the temperature, as set forth above, these remarks are moot.
The Examiner notes that Applicant’s remarks do not address any specific teachings in any of Zhao or Sham, referring only to the supposed deficiencies of Lee, such that these remarks are also moot.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2021/0345885 to Umeda, US 2023/0050433 to Heller, which also disclose use of “atmospheric environment” in compensating temperature measurements
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 KAREN E TOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-6824. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9a-6p.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at 571-272-5001. 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.
/KAREN E TOTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights