DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-13 are pending and under examination herein.
Claims 1-2 are objected to.
Claim 1-13 are rejected.
Priority
The instant application claims foreign priority to 20192840.5, filed 08/26/2020, and is a National Stage entry of PCT/EP2021/072134 , International Filing Date: 08/09/2021, which claims priority from US Provisional Application 63/067004 , filed 08/18/2020. As such, the effective filing date assigned to each of claims 1-13 is 08/18/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 02/16/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has therefore been considered. A signed copy of the IDS is included with this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings filed 02/16/2023 are accepted by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1:
“determining , via the processor, that the first person and the first associated mobile device are separated from each other by a second distance; and” should be “determining , via the processor, that the first person and the first associated mobile device are separated from each other by a second distance;
steps in the claim should be separated by a semicolon. Therefore, the step for “notifying…..by the second distance” should be “notifying…..by the second distance;”.
In claim 2: “comprises” should be “further comprises”.
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.
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 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: determining that the first person is carrying the first associated mobile device.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-13 appear to be free from a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, as the claims recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES), and while the claims do recite concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon (Step 2A, Prong 1:YES), the recited judicial exceptions are integrated into practical application (Step 2B, Prong 1:YES). Specifically, the steps for notifying , via at least one light effect provided by a first illumination device in communication with the processor, the first person that the first person and the first associated mobile device are separated from each other by the second distance integrate any recited judicial exceptions into practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, and 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mc Namara et al. (US11367534B2; hereafter referred to as Mc Namara).
With respect to claims 1, 3, 9, and 13, Mc Namara discloses computer implemented systems and methods for contagious disease risk management, in which the building system including one or more memory devices configured to store instructions thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to receive occupancy data of occupants from an occupant tracking system, the occupancy data indicating locations of the occupants within a building space of the building, determine if one or more occupants have violated a social distancing policy, and perform one or more operations to improve compliance with the social distancing policy within the building in response to a determination that the one or more occupants have violated the social distancing policy (title; abstract; claim 1; col 22, ln 41-col 23, ln 17).
Mc Namara discloses tracking assets and people using a system with transceivers, such as wireless beacons, a badge of the occupant, a mobile device of the occupant, a smartphone, a smartwatch, and infrared sensors, indicating that people can be tracked via infrared sensors and would carry a second mobile device (col 17, ln 56-63; col 23, ln 18-32).
Mc Namara further discloses asset tracking for a mobile asset, such as a ventilator associated with a high-risk individual (i.e. a mobile device), with a location tag that communicates with stationary transceivers that record the location of the mobile asset, and usage data indicating interaction of a person with the asset, and detecting a risk of human-to-surface contamination and onward human transmission, using people tracking data, room geofences, and equipment usage monitoring (col 19, ln 19- col 20, ln 32; fig 8). Mc Namara also discloses contact tracing, in which the length of time that the target individual was in proximity to another individual, piece of equipment, or within a space is taken into consideration, and that information relating to the presence of an infected person within a space and the duration of presence may additionally be used by the monitoring system to initiate a targeted decontamination of the relevant areas and equipment, rather than decontaminating a wider area or to plan how shared spaces are used (col 19, ln 44-col 20, ln 13). The location tracking of assets and people, as well as monitoring of interaction between people and assets by Mc Namara, indicates that Mc Namara would have data indicating the proximity of a person to an asset (i.e. a first mobile device) (fig 3; fig 6-7).
Mc Namara also discloses a contact tracing service which can generate contact tracing reports based on the occupant tracking data, determine occupants that interact with each other as well as locations (e.g., the spaces/equipment) that the occupants spend time within, and assist crisis management teams in order to facilitate proactive monitoring and/or response to an event, e.g., the spread of a disease (col 23, ln 5-col 25, ln 40).
Mc Namara also discloses sending social distancing alerts, including visual alerts, including in situations where the system detects a tune and distance criteria between two beacons is met, and notifying users via user devices and updating the contact tracing database (fig 4; col 16, ln 57-col 17, ln 33).
Therefore, Mc Namara discloses the determining the a first proximity of a first person to a first device, such as a mobile asset, and alerting the first person via a mobile device, such as a cell phone capable of an illuminated alert, when the proximity is a second distance (e.g. closer to the device), such as when it violates a social distancing policy, to perform targeted decontamination, or plan usage for a shared space.
Mc Namara also thus discloses determining when there is a second person positioned at a predetermined proximity to the first person, when the first person is within the second distance to the first device, such as when the second person with their own badge, cell phone, beacon, etc., is in the same room as the first person who is closer to an asset or equipment, since Mc Namara discloses determining occupants that interact with each other as well as locations (e.g., the spaces/equipment) that the occupants spend time within, and sending alerts and contact tracing reports via transceivers and mobile devices, as discussed above.
With respect to claims 4-5 and 12, Mc Namara discloses the occupant tracking system includes multiple beacons, with each beacon associated with an occupant, and a set of transceivers configured to determine the locations of the beacons, including devices such as smartphone (i.e. illumination devices), and further that the infection transmission risk manage uses this data, and data from other sensors to determine risk and transmit alerts and information via the user device, including mobile devices associated with users closer to the mobile asset (col 10, ln 27-col 11, ln 49; fig 8).
With respect to claim 6, Mc Namara discloses contact tracing, in which the length of time that the target individual was in proximity to another individual, piece of equipment, or within a space is taken into consideration, and determining whether one or more occupants of the plurality of occupants have violated a social distancing policy that reduces a spread of an infectious disease within the building based on the locations of at least two of the plurality of occupants, the social distancing policy based on one or more characteristics of the building space (col 19, ln 44-col 20, ln 13; claim 1).
With respect to claims 7-8, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the steps for activating and tracking the first person in a first mode is not required to be performed (see MPEP 2111.04 (II)). However, Mc Namara discloses usage data for mobile assets may include sensor data indicating interaction of a person with the asset or may include a power consumption data about the asset, indicating that the asset is or has been in use (i.e. carrying/using the device), and recording a change to the risk level (i.e. a first mode of operation) (fig 8; col 19, ln 19-43). Mc Namara also discloses contact tracing, in which the length of time that the target individual was in proximity to another individual, piece of equipment, or within a space is taken into consideration, and determining whether one or more occupants of the plurality of occupants have violated a social distancing policy that reduces a spread of an infectious disease within the building based on the locations of at least two of the plurality of occupants, the social distancing policy based on one or more characteristics of the building space (i.e. a second mode of operation) (col 19, ln 44-col 20, ln 13; claim 1).
With respect to claims 10-11, Mc Namara discloses tracking users via infrared sensors, and that the system may additionally record the identities of individuals with a high transmission risk rating, the identities of individuals they were in close contact with (as defined by the system), and the duration and location of the interaction, and the monitoring system may generate a prioritized list of persons that were most likely to have been exposed to an infectious disease from contact with contaminated surfaces or airborne contamination from a known infected person, based on a determination that they shared the same space (identified by a person's presence within a geofence) within a definable time window (based on infection data, such as infection transmission dynamics and survival duration on surfaces or in the air) and may additionally identify locations where a person with a positive diagnosis spent significant periods of time and the system may update its risk ratings for different areas and, where relevant, any equipment therein, based on this information, (i.e. track a person is a different mode, as “high-risk” person, after coming into close proximity for at least a predetermined amount of time with certain equipment) (col 17, ln 51-col 19, ln 4).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mc Namara et al. (US11367534B2; hereafter referred to as Mc Namara), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (Kyritsis et al. (2016 International Conference on Localization and GNSS (ICL-GNSS), Barcelona, Spain, 2016, pp. 1-6; hereafter referred to as Kyritsis).
With respect to claim 3, Mc Namara discloses the steps of claim 1, as applied above. Mc Namara further discloses that based on the distance of a beacon to three or more transceivers (trilateration and/or triangulation), the location of the beacon can be determined with a high degree of accuracy (i.e. location of the users/devices). However, Mc Namara does not appear to disclose calculating and comparing mapping probabilities.
However, the prior art to Kyritsis, in the same field of endeavor, discloses location based services have become very popular and the developed indoor positioning systems have achieved an impressive accuracy, however the problem though is that even if the only requirement is room-level localization, those systems are most of the times not cost-efficient and not easy to set-up, since they often require time-consuming calibration procedures, and therefore presents a solution of a BLE-based probabilistic room-level localization method, which uses a low-cost, threshold-based approach and introduces an algorithm that takes into account both the Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI) of the Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) beacons and the geometry of the rooms the beacons are placed in by calculating a probability for every beacon (i.e. mapping probability that is compared to other beacons) (fig 2; title; abstract; p 3, col 2, para 1-p 4, col 1, para 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method for contagious risk management through tracking of people and assets as disclosed by Mc Namara with the methods for mapping positions of beacons (carried by users) using probability and comparison to other beacons, as disclosed by Kyritsis, because most current systems are most of the times not cost-efficient and not easy to set-up, since they often require time-consuming calibration procedures, and there is a need for a BLE-based probabilistic room-level localization method, which uses a low-cost, threshold-based approach and introduces an algorithm that takes into account both the Received Signal Strength Indication (RSSI) of the Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) beacons and the geometry of the rooms the beacons are placed in, as disclosed by Kyritsis. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because using a probabilistic positioning method would not impede the system of Mc Namara, as Mc Namara used RSSI and BLE beacons. Therefore, the invention is prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIDHI DHARITHREESAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 - 5:00.
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, Larry D Riggs II can be reached at (571) 270-3062. 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.
/N.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/Karlheinz R. Skowronek/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights