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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB2011192.8, filed on 07/20/2020.
Preliminary Amendment
The Preliminary Amendment submitted on January 17, 2023 containing amendments to the claims is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Currently pending Claim(s):
Cancelled Claim(s):
Amended Claim(s)
1–16, 19–21, and 24
17, 18, 22 and 23
3–11, 13–16, 21, and 24
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2023, 09/26/2023, 07/08/2025 and 11/17/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-16 and 21 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2-16 “A method” should read “The method”.
Regarding claims 20 and 21 “An apparatus” should read “The apparatus”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“camera system” in claims 19 and 24.
“output device” in claims 19 and 24.
“image analysis module” in claims 19 and 24.
“validator module” in claims 19 and 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claims 19 and 25: “camera system” corresponds to Figure 3, element 32. “FIG. 3 is a schematic illustration of an apparatus for validating a procedure. In this example, the apparatus comprises a portable device 30 having a camera system 32 for capturing a video stream of a work area 34.” (Applicant Pub paragraph [0039]).
Claims 19 and 24: “output device” corresponds to “an output device for providing audio, textual and/or visual indications to the user.” (Applicant Pub paragraph [0026]).
Claims 19 and 24: “image analysis module” corresponds to Figure 3, element 36. “The camera system 32 outputs the video stream to an image analysis module 36. As will be explained in more detail below, the image analysis module 36 analyses the video stream to identify when certain pre-defined events or actions are being performed in the work area. The image analysis module 36 outputs corresponding event data to a validator module 38.” (Applicant Pub paragraph [0040]).
Claims 19 and 24: “validator module” corresponds to Figure 3, element 38. “The validator module 38 analyses the received event data to determine whether a predefined procedure has been correctly completed, or if any potential errors are being made. After making such a determination, the validator module 38 causes a display 40 to provide a corresponding indication to the user.” (Applicant Pub paragraph [0041]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 10, 13, 16, 19, and 24 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 1 recites the limitation "based on the or each identified mixing event" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation is unclear because it is not clear what “based on the” is referring to. Is it based on the mixing event? For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “the mixing event”.
Regarding claims 3, 10, 13, 16, 19, and 24, the phrase "and/or" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Dependent claims 2, 4-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 20, and 21 are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16, 19, 20, 21, and 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea - mental process) without significantly more.
Step (1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter;
Step (2A) Prong One: Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application;
Step (2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites a method. Therefore, the claim is directed to the statutory categories of process.
Step (2A):
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites:
“capturing a video stream of a work area in which the mixing procedure is carried out by a user; analysing the video stream to identify one or more mixing events in the video stream that correspond with the mixing procedure being correctly performed; determining, based on the or each identified mixing event, if the mixing procedure has been completed;” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the limitation encompasses the mental process of identifying a mixing event and determining if the mixing procedure is being correctly preformed which is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of “upon determining that the mixing procedure has been completed, causing a corresponding indication to be provided to the user.” amount to no more than mere necessary data gathering and applying because, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, it is simply using generic hardware to perform the abstract idea. Thus, they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step (2B):
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “upon determining that the mixing procedure has been completed, causing a corresponding indication to be provided to the user.” amount to no more than mere data gathering with general purpose hardware and provide no inventive concept. These elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Step 1:
Prong One:
Claims 2-16 recite a method. Claims 20 and 21 recite an apparatus. Therefore, the claims are directed to the statutory categories of process and machine respectively.
Step (2A):
Claims 2-16, 20 and 21 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For
the reasons described above, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims disclose similar limitations described for the independent claim above and do not provide anything more than the mental processes that are practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Prong Two:
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application nor includes additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Step 1:
Claim 19 recites an apparatus. Therefore, the claim is directed to the statutory categories of machine.
Step (2A):
Prong One:
Claim 19 recites:
“a camera system for capturing a video stream of a work area in which the mixing procedure is carried out by a user;” and “receive the video stream and to identify one or more mixing events in the video stream that correspond with the mixing procedure being correctly performed;” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the limitation encompasses the mental process of identifying a mixing event and determining if the mixing procedure is being correctly preformed which is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of “output device for providing audio, textual and/or visual indications to the user;” and “an image analysis module configured” and “validator module configured to determine, based on the or each identified mixing event, if the mixing procedure has been completed, and to cause the output device to provide a corresponding indication to the user upon determining that the mixing procedure has been completed.” amount to no more than mere necessary data gathering and applying because, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, it is simply using generic hardware to perform the abstract idea. Thus, they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step (2B):
Claim 19 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “output device for providing audio, textual and/or visual indications to the user;” and “an image analysis module configured” and “validator module configured to determine, based on the or each identified mixing event, if the mixing procedure has been completed, and to cause the output device to provide a corresponding indication to the user upon determining that the mixing procedure has been completed.” amount to no more than mere data gathering with general purpose hardware and provide no inventive concept. These elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Step 1:
Claim 24 recites a system. Therefore, the claim is directed to the statutory categories of machine.
Step (2A):
Prong One:
Claim 24 recites:
“a camera system for capturing a video stream of a work area in which the mixing procedure is carried out by a user;” and “receive the video stream and to identify one or more mixing events in the video stream that correspond with the mixing procedure being correctly performed;” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the limitation encompasses the mental process of identifying a mixing event and determining if the mixing procedure is being correctly preformed which is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper.
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of “a disinfectant system including: a first part comprising a first reagent in a carrier medium; and a second part which is miscible with the first part and which comprises a second reagent in a carrier medium; wherein the first reagent and the second reagent will react when mixed to provide a disinfecting composition” and “output device for providing audio, textual and/or visual indications to the user;” and “an image analysis module configured” and “validator module configured to determine, based on the or each identified mixing event, if the mixing procedure has been completed, and to cause the output device to provide a corresponding indication to the user upon determining that the mixing procedure has been completed.” amount to no more than mere necessary data gathering and applying because, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, it is simply using generic hardware to perform the abstract idea. Thus, they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and the claims are thus directed to the abstract idea.
Step (2B):
Claim 24 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations “a disinfectant system including: a first part comprising a first reagent in a carrier medium; and a second part which is miscible with the first part and which comprises a second reagent in a carrier medium; wherein the first reagent and the second reagent will react when mixed to provide a disinfecting composition” and “output device for providing audio, textual and/or visual indications to the user;” and “an image analysis module configured” and “validator module configured to determine, based on the or each identified mixing event, if the mixing procedure has been completed, and to cause the output device to provide a corresponding indication to the user upon determining that the mixing procedure has been completed.” amount to no more than mere data gathering with general purpose hardware and provide no inventive concept. These elements, individually and in combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. As such, the claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1- 13, 16, 19, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swinney (US 2016/0175066 A1) in view of Umeki Haruo et al. (JP 2020/064589 A) (hereafter, “Umeki”).
Regarding claim 1, Swinney teaches method for validating a mixing procedure in a process using a two- part disinfectant system, the disinfectant system comprising (Abstract “…a two-part disinfectant system comprising”):
a first part comprising a first reagent in a carrier medium (Abstract “a first part comprising a first reagent in a carrier medium”; paragraph [0017] “The dispenser 6 (best shown in FIG. 5) contains a first part comprising a first reagent in a carrier medium.”); and
a second part which is miscible with the first part and which comprises a second reagent in a carrier medium (Abstract “a second part which is miscible with the first part and which comprises a second reagent in a carrier medium”; paragraph [0020] “the disinfecting wipes 30 are impregnated with an aqueous acid solution (second part)”; paragraph [0021] “The pump dispenser 6 and disinfecting wipe sachets 8 together comprise the disinfectant system.”);
wherein the first reagent and the second reagent will react when mixed to provide a disinfecting composition (Abstract “wherein the first reagent and the second reagent will react when mixed to provide a disinfecting composition”; paragraph [0021] “The pump dispenser 6 and disinfecting wipe sachets 8 together comprise the disinfectant system. To activate a disinfecting wipe, a operator removes the wipe 30 from the container 8, and applies a portion of foam from the dispenser 6 to the wipe 30. To facilitate mixing of the reagents in the foam and the wipe, the operator may fold the wipe in half and crush or rub the folded wipe before opening it out”);
However, Swinney does not teach capturing a video stream of a work area in which the mixing procedure is carried out by a user; analysing the video stream to identify one or more mixing events in the video stream that correspond with the mixing procedure being correctly performed; determining, based on the or each identified mixing event, if the mixing procedure has been completed; and upon determining that the mixing procedure has been completed, causing a corresponding indication to be provided to the user.
Umeki teaches capturing a video stream of a work area in which the mixing procedure is carried out by a user (paragraph [0001] “The present invention relates to an image analysis device and an image analysis method capable of analyzing a process state in manufacturing a chemical product.”; paragraph [0002] “In this case, the management of process data is centered on fixed point management and visual recording of work by workers.”; paragraph [0013] “The image capturing unit 101 captures a process state of the manufacturing process of the chemical product 131 in time series.”);
analysing the video stream to identify one or more mixing events in the video stream that correspond with the mixing procedure being correctly performed (paragraph [0005] “In order to achieve the above object, an image analysis device according to a first aspect includes an image capturing unit that captures a process state of a chemical product in time series, and an image analyzing unit that analyzes an image captured by the image capturing unit. And a control unit that controls process conditions in the production of the chemical product based on the analysis result of the”);
determining, based on the or each identified mixing event, if the mixing procedure has been completed (paragraph [0014] “The image analysis unit 102 analyzes the image captured by the image capturing unit 101. At this time, the image analysis unit 102 can time-sequentially generate the digitized data related to the process state of the chemical product 131, based on the image data output from the imaging unit 101. For example, the image analysis unit 102 generates numerical data regarding the color or movement of the liquid surface 132 of the chemical product 131 based on the image data of the liquid surface 132 of the chemical product 131, and analyzes the process state of the chemical product 131. be able to.”; paragraph [0015] The determination unit 103 determines an abnormal point and / or an end point of a process in manufacturing the chemical product 131 based on the analysis result of the image analysis unit 102”; paragraph [0024] “Then, the determination unit 103 determines the process end point of the chemical product 131 by comparing the digitized data indicating the color of the chemical product 131 output from the image analysis unit 102 with a threshold value, and the determination result is determined by the control unit. It outputs to 104 and the notification part 105.”); and
upon determining that the mixing procedure has been completed, causing a corresponding indication to be provided to the user (paragraph [0025] “When the notification unit 105 receives the notification of the end point of the process of the chemical product 131, the notification unit 105 generates an alarm for notifying the end point of the process of the chemical product 131, and the worker confirms the alarm.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify Swinney’s reference to include the apparatus for validating a mixing procedure taught by Umeki’s reference. The motivation for doing so would have been to advance to the next step of the process and stabilizing manufacturing quality while suppressing an increase in man-hours for manpower as suggested by Umeki (see, Umeki paragraph [0004] and paragraph [0025]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements described above by known methods with no change to the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more that predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Umeki with Swinney to obtain the invention specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, which claim 1 is incorporated, Swinney does not teach wherein analysing the video stream comprises using a trained neural network to identify the mixing event or at least one of the mixing events.
Umeki teaches wherein analysing the video stream comprises using a trained neural network to identify the mixing event or at least one of the mixing events (paragraph [[0089] “… this image analysis device includes a machine learning unit 106 in addition to the configuration of the image analysis device… The machine learning unit 106 may use, for example, a neural network or a support vector machine.”; paragraph [0093] “When the chemical product 131 is completed as a product, quality inspection is performed on the chemical product 131, and the result of the quality inspection is held as quality inspection data 305. The machine learning unit 106 in FIG. 13 checks the correlation between the process state of the chemical product 131 and the quality of the chemical product 131 by performing machine learning / analysis 306 based on the manufacturing performance data 304 and the quality inspection data 305. , The manufacturing procedure 307 of the chemical product 131 and the threshold value setting 308 of the abnormal point or the end point of the process are fed back.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify Swinney’s reference to include analysing the video stream comprises using a trained neural network to identify the mixing event or at least one of the mixing events taught by Umeki’s reference. The motivation for doing so would have been to for the neural network to learn a threshold for determining a point of the process as suggested by Umeki (see, Umeki paragraph [0089]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements described above by known methods with no change to the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more that predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Umeki with Swinney to obtain the invention specified in claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, which claim 1 is incorporated, Swinney discloses wherein the first part and/or the second part of the disinfectant system comprises an indicator component that undergoes a colour change upon mixing of the first part and the second part, and wherein the mixing event or one of the mixing events comprises the colour change (paragraph [0021] “Preferably, one of the components is provided with a pH-sensitive indicator which changes colour or becomes coloured when adequate mixing has occurred, thereby indicating that sufficient CIO, has been generated in the wipe.”).
Regarding claim 4, which claim 1 is incorporated, Swinney discloses wherein the mixing event or one of the mixing events comprises the application of a predetermined quantity of the first part of the disinfectant system to a predetermined quantity of the second part of the disinfectant system (paragraph [0048] “The first output from the foam bottle can be left on the wipe, to be followed by two complete pumps. The Activator Foam bottle is then primed for subsequent wipes. For all subsequent wipes, pump two measures of Activator Foam onto the Sporicidal Wipe.”).
Regarding claim 5, which claim 1 is incorporated, Swinney discloses wherein the first part of the disinfectant system is contained in a dispenser whereby it may be dispensed as a fluid, and wherein the mixing event or one of the mixing events comprises dispensing of the fluid from the dispenser (Abstract “the first part being contained in a dispenser (6) whereby it will be dispensed as a fluid when the dispenser is actuated,”; paragraph [0017] “The dispenser 6 (best shown in FIG. 5) contains a first part comprising a first reagent in a carrier medium. The first reagent and carrier medium are dispensed as a metered dose via a nozzle 54 when a trigger 52 is depressed.”; paragraph [0018] “In the present example, the first part is a liquid comprising 0.75% of a first reagent (sodium chlorite), 3.0% foam promoter (Cocamidopropyl Betaine). The remainder is deionised water… Operation of the trigger 52 dispenses the first part as a foam.”).
Regarding claim 6, which claim 1 is incorporated, Swinney discloses wherein the second part of the disinfectant system is absorbed or impregnated in a wipe, and wherein the mixing event or one of the mixing events comprises folding or scrunching of the wipe after application of the first part to the wipe (paragraph [0021] “To activate a disinfecting wipe, a operator removes the wipe 30 from the container 8, and applies a portion of foam from the dispenser 6 to the wipe 30. To facilitate mixing of the reagents in the foam and the wipe, the operator may fold the wipe in half and crush or rub the folded wipe before opening it out.”).
Regarding claim 7, which claim 1 is incorporated, Swinney discloses wherein determining if the mixing procedure has been completed comprises determining a cumulative time for which the mixing event or at least one of the mixing events has been performed, and comparing the cumulative time to a predetermined minimum mixing time (paragraph [0048] “Scrunch together 15 seconds to activate. Ensure that the wipe is evenly covered with foam.”; paragraph [0058] “The system provides a manual decontamination process which in some embodiments can link to electronic patient records to provide traceability and process verifiability. Information which may be read includes … the date and time of decontamination, and the identity of the operator. The electronic record permits recording of each of the pre-clean wipe process,”).
Regarding claim 8, which claim 1 is incorporated, Swinney discloses wherein determining if the mixing procedure has been completed comprises determining, based on at least two identified mixing events, if (a) the predetermined quantity of the first part of the disinfectant system has been applied to the wipe and (b) the wipe has subsequently been folded or scrunched for at least the predetermined minimum mixing time (paragraph [0048] “Take the lid off the Activator Foam bottle. If the Activator Foam bottle is being used for the first time, depress the pump two to four times to prime the foamer. The first output from the foam bottle can be left on the wipe, to be followed by two complete pumps. The Activator Foam bottle is then primed for subsequent wipes. For all subsequent wipes, pump two measures of Activator Foam onto the Sporicidal Wipe.”).
Regarding claim 9, which claim 1 is incorporated, Swinney discloses wherein determining if the mixing procedure has been completed comprises determining whether a plurality of different mixing events have been performed in a predetermined sequence (paragraph [0048] “Take the lid off the Activator Foam bottle. If the Activator Foam bottle is being used for the first time, depress the pump two to four times to prime the foamer. The first output from the foam bottle can be left on the wipe, to be followed by two complete pumps. The Activator Foam bottle is then primed for subsequent wipes. For all subsequent wipes, pump two measures of Activator Foam onto the Sporicidal Wipe.”).
Regarding claim 10, which claim 1 is incorporated, Swinney discloses wherein the mixing event or at least one of the mixing events comprises the presentation of a container containing the first part and/or the presentation of a container containing the second part (paragraph [0030] “During normal operation, the controller 14 in this example will prompt for scans in the following order. At each point, the appropriate bar code is to be held underneath the reader. A bleep will confirm the scan was completed and the controller will prompt for the next stage.”; paragraph [0032] “Bar codes are requested in the following order: … 2. Instrument 3. Pre-Clean Wipe 4. Disinfecting Wipe 5. Activator Foam (Dispenser) 6. Rinse Wipe.”)
Regarding claim 11, which claim 1 is incorporated, Swinney does not teach when analysing the video stream, identifying one or more alert events in the video stream that correspond with potential errors being made during performance of the mixing procedure; and upon identification of an alert event, causing a corresponding alert to be provided to the user.
Umeki does teach when analysing the video stream, identifying one or more alert events in the video stream that correspond with potential errors being made during performance of the mixing procedure; and upon identification of an alert event, causing a corresponding alert to be provided to the user (“paragraph [0019] “The notification unit 105 notifies the abnormality and / or the end of the process in the production of the chemical product 131 based on the determination result by the determination unit 103. When notifying that the process of the chemical product 131 is abnormal and / or terminated, the notification unit 105 may display the process state of the chemical product 131 in a captured history image, or when the process of the chemical product 131 is abnormal.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify Swinney’s reference to include analysing the video stream, identifying one or more alert events in the video stream that correspond with potential errors being made during performance of the mixing procedure; and upon identification of an alert event, causing a corresponding alert to be provided to the user taught by Umeki’s reference. The motivation for doing so would have been so that the abnormal process can be dealt with as suggested by Umeki (see, Umeki paragraph [0028]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements described above by known methods with no change to the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more that predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Umeki with Swinney to obtain the invention specified in claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, which claim 11 is incorporated, Swinney does not teach wherein the alert event or one of the alert events comprises shaking a container containing the first part or shaking a container containing the second part.
Umeki does teach wherein the alert event or one of the alert events comprises shaking a container containing the first part or shaking a container containing the second part (paragraph [0037] “When the notification unit 105 receives the detection result of the stirring abnormality, the notification unit 105 generates an alarm notifying the stirring abnormality of the chemical product 131, and the worker confirms the alarm, so that the stirring abnormality of the chemical product 131 can be dealt with.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify Swinney’s reference to include wherein the alert event or one of the alert events comprises shaking a container containing the first part or shaking a container containing the second part taught by Umeki’s reference. The motivation for doing so would have been so that the abnormal process can be dealt with as suggested by Umeki (see, Umeki paragraph [0028]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements described above by known methods with no change to the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more that predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Umeki with Swinney to obtain the invention specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, which claim 11 is incorporated, Swinney discloses wherein the alert event or one of the alert events comprises non-visibility in the work area of the user's hands, the first part of the disinfectant system and/or the second part of the disinfectant system (paragraph [0033-0034] “The controller will detect … if the incorrect product is scanned. For example: The operator scans the Instrument bar code followed by the Dispenser (Activator Foam) bar code. An error bleep will sound and the display 16 will show "Incorrect product". The cycle will need to be restarted by pressing button”).
Regarding claim 19, Swinney discloses [an apparatus for validating] a mixing procedure in a process using a two- part disinfectant system (Abstract “ ...a two-part disinfectant system”).
However Swinney does not teach an apparatus for validating a mixing procedure comprising: a camera system for capturing a video stream of a work area in which the mixing procedure is carried out by a user; an output device for providing audio, textual and/or visual indications to the user; an image analysis module configured to receive the video stream and to identify one or more mixing events in the video stream that correspond with the mixing procedure being correctly performed; and a validator module configured to determine, based on the or each identified mixing event, if the mixing procedure has been completed, and to cause the output device to provide a corresponding indication to the user upon determining that the mixing procedure has been completed.
Umeki teaches an apparatus for validating a mixing procedure comprising: a camera system for capturing a video stream of a work area in which the mixing procedure is carried out by a user (paragraph [0001] “The present invention relates to an image analysis device and an image analysis method capable of analyzing a process state in manufacturing a chemical product.”; paragraph [0002] “In this case, the management of process data is centered on fixed point management and visual recording of work by workers.”);
an output device for providing audio, textual and/or visual indications to the user (paragraph [0025] “When the notification unit 105 receives the notification of the end point of the process of the chemical product 131, the notification unit 105 generates an alarm for notifying the end point of the process of the chemical product 131, and the worker confirms the alarm”);
an image analysis module configured to receive the video stream and to identify one or more mixing events in the video stream that correspond with the mixing procedure being correctly performed (paragraph [0005] “In order to achieve the above object, an image analysis device according to a first aspect includes an image capturing unit that captures a process state of a chemical product in time series, and an image analyzing unit that analyzes an image captured by the image capturing unit. And a control unit that controls process conditions in the production of the chemical product based on the analysis result of the image analysis unit”); and
a validator module configured to determine, based on the or each identified mixing event, if the mixing procedure has been completed, and to cause the output device to provide a corresponding indication to the user upon determining that the mixing procedure has been completed (paragraph [0024] “Then, the determination unit 103 determines the process end point of the chemical product 131 by comparing the digitized data indicating the color of the chemical product 131 output from the image analysis unit 102 with a threshold value, and the determination result is determined by the control unit. It outputs to 104 and the notification part 105.”; paragraph [0025] “When the notification unit 105 receives the notification of the end point of the process of the chemical product 131, the notification unit 105 generates an alarm for notifying the end point of the process of the chemical product 131, and the worker confirms the alarm”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify Swinney’s reference to include the apparatus for validating a mixing procedure taught by Umeki’s reference. The motivation for doing so would have been to advance to the next step of the process and stabilizing manufacturing quality while suppressing an increase in man-hours for manpower as suggested by Umeki (see, Umeki paragraph [0004] and paragraph [0025]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements described above by known methods with no change to the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more that predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Umeki with Swinney to obtain the invention specified in claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, which claim 19 is incorporated, Swinney does not teach wherein the image analysis module comprises a neural network-based classifier trained to recognise said one or more mixing events in the video stream.
Umeki teaches wherein the image analysis module comprises a neural network-based classifier trained to recognise said one or more mixing events in the video stream (paragraph [[0089] “… this image analysis device includes a machine learning unit 106 in addition to the configuration of the image analysis device… The machine learning unit 106 may use, for example, a neural network or a support vector machine.”; paragraph [0093] “When the chemical product 131 is completed as a product, quality inspection is performed on the chemical product 131, and the result of the quality inspection is held as quality inspection data 305. The machine learning unit 106 in FIG. 13 checks the correlation between the process state of the chemical product 131 and the quality of the chemical product 131 by performing machine learning / analysis 306 based on the manufacturing performance data 304 and the quality inspection data 305. , The manufacturing procedure 307 of the chemical product 131 and the threshold value setting 308 of the abnormal point or the end point of the process are fed back.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify Swinney’s reference to include the image analysis module comprises a neural network-based classifier trained to recognise said one or more mixing events in the video stream taught by Umeki’s reference. The motivation for doing so would have been to for the neural network to learn a threshold for determining a point of the process as suggested by Umeki (see Umeki paragraph [0089]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements described above by known methods with no change to the respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more that predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Umeki with Swinney to obtain the invention specified in claim 20.
Regarding claim 24, Swinney discloses a decontamination system comprising: a disinfectant system including (Abstract “...a two-part disinfectant system comprising:”):
a first part comprising a first reagent in a carrier medium (Abstract “a first part comprising a first reagent in a carrier medium”; paragraph [0017] “The dispenser 6 (best shown in FIG. 5) contains a first part comprising a first reagent in a carrier medium.”); and
a second part which is miscible with the first part and which comprises a second reagent in a carrier medium (Abstract “a second part which is miscible with the first part and which comprises a second reagent in a carrier medium;” paragraph [0020] “the disinfecting wipes 30 are impregnated with an aqueous acid solution (second part)”; paragraph [0021] The pump dispenser 6 and disinfecting wipe sachets 8 together comprise the disinfectant system.”);
wherein the first reagent and the second reagent will react when mixed to provide a disinfecting composition (Abstract “wherein the first reagent and the second reagent will react when mixed to provide a disinfecting composition”; paragraph [0021] “The pump dispenser 6 and disinfecting wipe sachets 8 together comprise the disinfectant system. To activate a disinfecting wipe, a operator removes the wipe 30 from the container 8, and applies a portion of foam from the dispenser 6 to the wipe 30. To facilitate mixing of the reagents in the foam and the wipe, the operator may fold the wipe in half and crush or rub the folded wipe before opening it out”);
and an [apparatus for validating] a mixing procedure in use of the disinfectant system comprising (Abstract “...a two-part disinfectant system comprising.”)
However Swinney does not teach an apparatus for validating a mixing procedure comprising: a camera system for capturing a video stream of a work area in which the mixing procedure is carried out by a user; an output device for providing audio, textual and/or visual indications to the user; an image analysis module configured to receive the video stream and to identify one or more mixing events in the video stream that correspond with the mixing procedure being correctly performed; and a validator module configured to determine, based on the or each identified mixing event, if the mixing procedure has been completed, and to cause the output device to provide a corresponding indication to the user upon determining that the mixing procedure has been completed.
Umeki teaches an apparatus for validating a mixing procedure comprising: a camera system for capturing a video stream of a work area in which the mixing procedure is carried out by a user (paragraph [0001] “The present invention relates to an image analysis device and an image analysis method capable of analyzing a process state in manufacturing a chemical product.”; paragraph [0002] “In this case, the management of process data is centered on fixed point management and visual recording of work by workers.”);
an output device for providing audio, textual and/or visual indications to the user (paragraph [0025] “When the notification unit 105 receives the notification of the end point of the process of the chemical product 131, the notification unit 105 generates an alarm for notifying the end point of the process of the chemical product 131, and the worker confirms the alarm”);
an image analysis module configured to receive the video stream and to identify one or more mixing events in the video stream that correspond with the mixing procedure being correctly performed (paragraph [0005]In order to achieve the above object, an image analysis device according to a first aspect includes an image capturing unit that captures a process state of a chemical product in time series, and an image analyzing unit that analyzes an image captured by the image capturing unit. And a control unit that controls process conditions in the production of the chemical product based on the analysis result of the image analysis unit”); and
a validator module configured to determine, based on the or each identified mixing event, if the mixing procedure has been completed, and to cause the output device to provide a corresponding indication to the user upon determining that the mixing procedure has been completed (paragraph [0024] “Then, the determination unit 103 determines the process end point of the chemical product 131 by comparing the digitized data indicating the color of the chemical product 131 output from the image analysis unit 102 with a threshold value, and the determination result is determined by the control unit. It outputs to 104 and the notification part 105.”; paragraph [0025] “When the notification unit 105 receives the notification of the end point of the process of the chemical product 131, the notification unit 105 generates an alarm for notifying the end point of the process of the chemical product 131, and the worker confirms the alarm”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to modify Swinney’s reference to include the apparatus for validating a mixing procedure taught by Umeki’s reference. The motivation for doing so would have been to advance to the next step of the process and stabilizing manufacturing quality while suppressing an increase in man-hours for manpower as suggested by Umeki (see, Umeki paragraph [0025] and paragraph [0004]).
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements descri