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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and under exam herein.
Claims 1-11 are rejected.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/JP2020/038387 filed on 10/9/2020. Thus, the effective filing date of the instant application is 10/9/2020.
Drawings
The Drawings filed on 04/05/2023 were considered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/05/2023 and 02/28/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim interpretation
Examiner interprets “at the airport” in claims 1, 3, 10, 11 and their dependent claims as having no patentable weight as nothing in the specification limits the information processing device, method or computer program from only working at an airport.
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.
Claim 1 recites “an identifying unit that identifies” and “a generating unit that generates”
Claim 3 recites “an acquisition unit that acquires”
Claim 10 recites “an identifying unit that identifies” and “a generating unit that generates”
Claim 11 recites “an identifying unit that identifies” and “a generating unit that generates”
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, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim limitation of Claim 1 recites “an identifying unit that identifies” and “a generating unit that generates”, Claim 3 recites “an acquisition unit that acquires”, Claim 10 recites “an identifying unit that identifies” and “a generating unit that generates”, Claim 11 recites “an identifying unit that identifies” and “a generating unit that generates” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5, 8, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. These claims are multiple dependent claims which depend on other multiple dependent claims, see MPEP 608.01(n) for more information.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: (a) mathematical concepts, (e.g., mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and (b) mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Subject matter eligibility evaluation in accordance with MPEP 2106:
Eligibility Step 1: Claims 1-10 are directed to a system and method for monitoring fevers and performing statical analysis. Claim 11 is directed to a storage medium storing a program which is categorically ineligible. Examiner will assume “non-transitory” storage medium for the purpose of compact prosecution.
[Step 1: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if
so, then it is determined in Prong Two whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a
practical application of that exception.
Eligibility Step 2A Prong One: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception,
examination is performed that analyzes whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a
law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.
Independent claim 1 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
an identifying unit that identifies a person with fever at an airport; and (mental process, an individual can visually identify a person with a fever through the appearance of symptoms, there is also no mention of identifying with high accuracy)
a generating unit that generates statistical information related to the person with fever based on user information acquired from the person with fever. (mental process, mathematical concept)
Dependent claim 2 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
wherein the user information includes at least one of as following: gender, age, and nationality of the person with fever, a flight number, a departure place, and an arrival place related to an aircraft on which the person with fever boarded (this just limits the information that is analyzed)
Dependent claim 3 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
a matching unit that performs a matching process between the biometric information and registered biometric information of the user registered in advance; and (mathematical concept, mental process)
a processing unit that associates the registered biometric information, the body surface temperature, and the user information when the user is successfully authenticated by the matching process (mathematical concept)
Dependent claim 4 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
wherein the identifying unit identifies the person with fever based on the body surface temperature (mathematical concept, mental process, comparing 2 numbers will give a temperature)
Dependent claim 5 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
wherein the identifying unit identifies the person with fever among a plurality of users based on the measurement history information of the body surface temperature measured at each of a plurality of procedure places (mathematical concept, mental process, comparing 2 numbers will give a temperature)
Dependent claim 6 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
wherein the identifying unit identifies the user as the person with fever when there are a predetermined number of values equal to or larger than a reference value among a plurality of body surface temperatures included in the measurement history information of the user (mathematical concept, mental process, comparing 2 numbers will give a temperature)
Dependent claim 7 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
wherein the identifying unit identifies the user as the person with fever when the body surface temperature at least measured at the predetermined procedure place is equal to or higher than the reference value among a plurality of the body surface temperatures included in the measurement history information of the user (mathematical concept, mental process, comparing numbers will give a temperature)
Dependent claim 8 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
wherein the generating unit automatically generates the statistical information based on pre-specified conditions (mathematical concept)
Dependent claim 9 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
wherein the generating unit automatically generates the statistical information based on pre-specified conditions (mathematical concept)
Independent claim 10 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
identifying a person with fever at an airport; and (mathematical concept, mental process)
generating statistical information related to the person with fever based on user information acquired from the person with fever. (mathematical concept, mental process)
Independent claim 11 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
identifying a person with fever at an airport; and (mathematical concept, mental process)
generating statistical information related to the person with fever based on user information acquired from the person with fever (mathematical concept, mental process)
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations when read in light of and consistent with the specification. As noted in the foregoing section, the claims are determined to contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of a pencil and paper, and therefore recite judicial exceptions from the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the recited limitations that are identified as judicial exceptions from the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas are abstract ideas irrespective of whether or not the limitations are practical to perform in the human mind.
Therefore, claims 1-11 recite an abstract idea as the dependent claims will inherit the abstract ideas from the independent claims.
[Step 2A Prong One: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A Prong Two: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, further
examination is performed that analyzes if the claim recites additional elements that when examined as a
whole integrates the judicial exception(s) into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim that
integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception
in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claimed additional elements
are analyzed to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP
2106.04(d)(I); MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract
idea, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(III)).
The judicial exceptions identified in Eligibility Step 2A Prong One are not integrated into a practical application because of the reasons noted below.
The additional element in independent claim 1 includes:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
The additional element in dependent claim 3 includes:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1 or 2, further comprising:
an acquisition unit that acquires biometric information and the user information of a user acquired at a procedure place in the airport,
and acquires a body surface temperature of the user measured at the procedure place
The additional element in independent claim 10 includes:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
The additional element in independent claim 11 includes:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
The additional elements of an acquisition unit that acquires biometric information and the user information of a user acquired at a procedure place in the airport (Claim 3), and acquires a body surface temperature of the user measured at the procedure place (Claim 3) are insignificant extra-solution activity that are part of the data gathering process used in the recited judicial exceptions (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements of an information processing apparatus comprising (Claim 1), an information processing apparatus comprising (Claim 10), an information processing apparatus comprising (Claim 11) fail to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Thus, the additionally recited elements merely invoke a computer as a tool, and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, and as such, when all limitations in claims 1-11 have been considered as a whole, the claims are deemed to not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and therefore claims 1-11 are directed to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
[Step 2A Prong Two: NO]
Eligibility Step 2B: Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are probed for a specific inventive concept. The judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05A i-vi).
The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because of the reasons noted below.
The additional elements recited in claims 1, 3, 10, 11 are identified above, and carried over from Step 2A: Prong Two along with their conclusions for analysis at Step 2B. Any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity at Step 2A: Prong Two was re-evaluated at Step 2B, because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and all additional elements and combination of elements were evaluated to determine whether any additional elements or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP 2106.05(d).
The additional elements of an acquisition unit that acquires biometric information and the user information of a user acquired at a procedure place in the airport (Claim 3), and acquires a body surface temperature of the user measured at the procedure place (Claim 3) are conventional and part of the data gathering process used in the recited judicial exceptions (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Evidence for conventionality is shown by US20170061074A1 which discusses how acquiring body temperature is a routine practice for detecting fevers (specification paragraph 17) and WO 2008055181 which discusses acquiring and matching of biometric data is a routine process in identity verification (specification claim 4)
The additional elements of an information processing apparatus comprising (Claim 1), an information processing apparatus comprising (Claim 10), an information processing apparatus comprising (Claim 11) fail to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Therefore, when taken alone, all additional elements in claims 1-11 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when evaluated as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception(s) into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, claims 1-11 are deemed to not contribute an inventive concept, i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05(II)).
[Step 2B: NO]
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, 2, 8,9 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20170061074A1.
With respect to the limitations of Claims 1, 2, 8, 9 10, 11, US20170061074A1 teaches an information system with a non-transitory computer readable medium, and a method for identifying individuals with a fever (specification, paragraph 16). It also teaches using statistics and analytics on the data gathered to give the patient health information including forecasting, estimated length of illness, symptom prediction, and level of contagiousness (specification, paragraph 25, An information processing apparatus comprising: an identifying unit that identifies a person with fever at an airport; and a generating unit that generates statistical information related to the person with fever based on user information acquired from the person with fever (Claim 1) An information processing method comprising: identifying a person with fever at an airport; and generating statistical information related to the person with fever based on user information acquired from the person with fever (Claim 10) A storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to perform: identifying a person with fever at an airport; and generating statistical information related to the person with fever based on user information acquired from the person with fever (Claim 11)
With respect to the limitations of Claim 2, US20170061074A1 teaches an information device that processes symptomatic data in conjunction with demographic data (e.g., age), diagnosis data, diagnosis data in conjunction with demographic data (e.g., age), or vital sign data or vital sign data in conjunction with demographic data, as well as various combinations of the foregoing (specification, paragraph 103, wherein the user information includes at least one of as following: gender, age, and nationality of the person with fever, a flight number, a departure place, and an arrival place related to an aircraft on which the person with fever boarded (Claim 2))
With respect to the limitations of Claim 8, US20170061074A1 teaches that the information system be configured to automatically execute the software modules which have been previously programmed based on pre-specified conditions. (specification, paragraph 89, wherein the generating unit automatically generates the statistical information based on pre-specified conditions (Claim 8)
With respect to the limitations of Claim 9, US20170061074A1 teaches an information system for detecting patients with fever and performing analytics/ statistical analysis while also having the ability to be connected to a remote computer or server. It can also display its results and interactive interface remotely. (specification, paragraph 85, wherein the generating unit generates the statistical information based on conditions specified in an external terminal and outputs the statistical information to the external terminal (Claim 9)
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.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20170061074A1 as applied to Claims 1-2, 8-11 in further view of WO 2008055181. The italicized text corresponds to the instant claim limitations.
The limitations of claims 1-2, 8-11 have been taught by US20170061074A1 above.
With respect to the limitations of Claims 3, 4, US20170061074A1 teaches recording an individual’s body temperature using a forehead infrared sensor in order to detect a fever (specification, paragraph 178, and acquires a body surface temperature of the user measured at the procedure place (Claim 3), wherein the identifying unit identifies the person with fever based on the body surface temperature (Claim 4))
With respect to the limitations of Claims 5, US20170061074A1 teaches measuring the temperature of a person multiple times and monitoring it for deviations associated with a fever. The application also specifically mentions temperatures above 37.2 degrees Celsius as being associated with a fever. (specification paragraph 129 and paragraph 17, wherein the identifying unit identifies the person with fever among a plurality of users based on the measurement history information of the body surface temperature measured at each of a plurality of procedure places (Claim 5), wherein the identifying unit identifies the user as the person with fever when there are a predetermined number of values equal to or larger than a reference value among a plurality of body surface temperatures included in the measurement history information of the user (Claim 6), wherein the identifying unit identifies the user as the person with fever when the body surface temperature at least measured at the predetermined procedure place is equal to or higher than the reference value among a plurality of the body surface temperatures included in the measurement history information of the user (Claim 7)
US20170061074A1 does not explicitly teach
an acquisition unit that acquires biometric information and the user information of a user acquired at a procedure place in the airport (Claim 3),
a matching unit that performs a matching process between the biometric information and registered biometric information of the user registered in advance ;
and a processing unit that associates the registered biometric information, the body surface temperature, and the user information when the user is successfully authenticated by the matching process. (Claim 3)
With respect to the limitations of Claims 1, WO 2008055181 teaches a method of acquiring biometric data such as facial recognition and matching it to a database for identification of an individual. The system also saves and stores other information about the individual such as flight information. It is an obvious modification to add this information with the health information for statistical analysis (Claim 1 of WO 2008055181, an acquisition unit that acquires biometric information and the user information of a user acquired at a procedure place in the airport (Claim 3), a matching unit that performs a matching process between the biometric information and registered biometric information of the user registered in advance ; and a processing unit that associates the registered biometric information, the body surface temperature, and the user information when the user is successfully authenticated by the matching process. (Claim 3)
A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the fever detection and health diagnosis system of US20170061074A1 with biometric verification of WO 2008055181. As US20170061074A1 is already a working product that can easily be modified with a sensor to capture and analyze biometric data as taught by WO 2008055181. This would prove useful for patient verification and the gathering of demographic data for analysis. There is a reasonable expectation of success because one is just combining two well known methods without changing how they work. It is simply just adding a known technique of quiring and matching biometric data to a health data collection and analysis pipeline.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connor Beveridge whose telephone number is 571-272-2099. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 5 pm.
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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at 571-272-9047. 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.
/C.H.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/Karlheinz R. Skowronek/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights