DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
2. In response to the amendment filed 18 December 2025, claims 16-19 and newly added claims 65-76 remain pending.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
3. 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 16-19 and 65-76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claims 16 and 17 recite a method comprising:
performing an analysis of hygiene performance data according to at least one hygiene criterion; and
calculating a score for a participating user based on the analysis of the hygiene performance data.
The limitations of performing an analysis and calculating a score, as drafted, constitutes a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “server” in claim 16 and a “controller” in claim 17, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “server” and “controller” language, “performing” and “calculating” in the context of these claims encompasses a user manually analysis the data and calculating a score, for example using a pen and paper or as a series of purely mental steps. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, as discussed above the claims only recite utilizing a generic server in claim 16 and generic controller in claim 17 performing the performing and calculating steps. This server and controller are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer component performing generic computer function analyzing performance data to calculate a score) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims further recite receiving the hygiene criterion from a mobile device and collecting the performance data via a second mobile device or a sensor. These mobile device and sensor are recited at a high level of generality, and are only involved in pre-solution data gathering. Therefore, these elements amount to no more than addition of insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The claims further recite a mirror having a mirror layer and an electronic display layer, wherein the score is sent to the display layer. This amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (mirror with an electronic display). See MPEP 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a server or controller to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component., and the receiving a hygiene criterion and performance data from a mobile device and sensor amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Furthermore, the use of a mirror with a display as detailed above represents no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. This use of a mirror with a display also represents well-understood, routine conventional activity previously known to the industry, as evidenced by Bone et al. (US 2016/0133119 A1) (see below), and Ophardt et al. (US 2017/0215655 A1). The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 19 and 65-76 recite the same abstract idea as in their respective parent claims, and do not recite additional limitations sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more. The claims only recite additional abstract details being performed by the generic computer components, such as additional information being provided to the user and supervisor, and additional details of the hygiene criterion.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 16-19, 65-68, 70-74 and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worrall (US 2019/0354753 A1) in view of Rosse (US Patent No. 6,640,212 B1) and Bone et al. (US 2016/0133119 A1).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Worrall discloses a system for monitoring hygiene (see e.g. Fig. 3), the system comprising:
a first mobile device associated with a supervising user (Par. 59);
a second mobile device associated with a participating user, the second mobile device configured to collect hygiene performance data related to a hygiene activity of the participating user (mobile device of user used to identify user and collect hygiene data of the user, for example associated with user’s use of handwashing equipment – Par’s 37-38); and
a server (see Par. 131 – “servers and processors for analysis and feedback in a central room”) configured to perform an analysis of the hygiene performance data according to at least one hygiene criterion (e.g. handwashing protocol – Par’s. 63-64), calculate a score for the participating user based on the analysis of the hygiene performance data (calculate compliance score – Par. 67) (as per claim 16), and
a system for monitoring hygiene, the system comprising:
a communication interface configured to receive at least one hygiene criterion and receive hygiene performance data related to a hygiene activity of a participating user via a sensor (see e.g. Par. 54 – choose a particular procedure or protocol dependent on the user that is biometrically recognized); and
a controller configured to perform an analysis of the hygiene performance data according to at least one hygiene criterion and calculate a score for the participating user based on the analysis of the hygiene performance data (Par’s. 63-64, 67).
Worrall further discloses providing feedback, including the score, to the user in real time during handwashing (Par. 68), but does not appear to disclose the system is a mirror system comprising a mirror having a mirror layer with a reflective substrate and an electronic display layer (as per claim 16), and a display layer and a mirror layer configured to provide a reflection (as per claim 17), wherein the score is sent in real time to the display layer of the mirror. However, Bone discloses a hand-washing compliance system that comprises a mirror (Par. 51) with a mirror layer and electronic display layer for providing hand-washing compliance data to the user while washing their hands (see Par. 62). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the teachings of Worrall by providing Worrall’s score on the mirror of Bone. Such a modification would involve combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
To the extent that Worrall does not explicitly disclose receiving the hygiene criterion from the supervising user’s mobile device (as per claims 16 and 17), Rosse discloses that the feature of allowing a supervisor to set performance criteria, including for hand washing, was well known to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (see column 11, lines 28-29 and 42-47). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Worrall by allowing receiving the hygiene criteria from the supervising user via the mobile device, as suggested by Rosse. Such a modification would involve applying a known technique (supervisor’s setting handwashing compliance criteria) to a known product (Worrall’s compliance system) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 18, 19, 67, 68, 70-74 and 76, Worrall further discloses
the at least one hygiene criterion includes a time value for the hygiene activity of the participating user (Par. 67) (as per claim 18),
the controller is configured to identify the participating user and select an incentive based on the score and the participating user (identify user, determine protocol and associated indicator of completion for user – Par’s. 51, 54) (as per claim 19),
providing an incentive to the participating user in response to the score (feedback to indicate compliance – Par. 51) (as per claim 67),
the incentive includes a visual cue in proximity to the hygiene activity (Par. 68) (as per claim 68),
providing a nonvisual cue to the participating user in response to the score (Par. 68) (as per claim 70),
the nonvisual cue includes an audio message or a scent (Par. 68) (as per claim 71),
the at least one hygiene criterion includes a time value for the hygiene activity of the participating user (Par. 67) (as per claim 72),
the at least one hygiene criterion includes a sequence of events for the hygiene activity of the participating user (order of usage - Par. 67) (as per claim 73),
the at least one hygiene criterion includes a schedule for the hygiene activity of the participating user (Par. 41) (as per claim 74),
a database configured to store an identifier for the participating user in association with the identifier for the participating user (see Par’s. 45-76) (as per claim 76),
Regarding claim 65, Worrall further discloses providing hygiene compliance data to the mobile device associated with the supervising user (Par. 59). To the extent that this does not constitute delivery of the score to the supervisor device, such a modification would have been obvious to one killed in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, since it would involve a simple substitution of one known element (the handwashing score in Par. 67) for another (the compliance data in Par. 59) to obtain predictable results of apprising the supervisor of a more detailed analysis of the user’s compliance data.
Regarding claim 66, Bone further discloses the interface includes augmented reality comprising a reflection in the mirror and at least one graphic for the at least one hygiene criterion displayed in association with the reflection in the mirror (see Par. 51, Fig. 3A).
7. Claim 69 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worrall (US 2019/0354753 A1) in view of Rosse (US Patent No. 6,640,212 B1) and Bone et al. (US 2016/0133119 A1), and further in view of Raman et al. (US 2015/0243175 A1).
Regarding claim 69, Worrall discloses the mobile device for the supervising user is a first mobile device (Par. 59), but the combination of Worrall, Rosse and Bone does not appear to explicitly disclose the incentive includes an access time for the participating user with a second mobile device. However, Raman discloses providing an incentive in the form of access time on a mobile device (Par. 24). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Worrall, Rosse and Bone by providing access time on a mobile device as incentive, as taught by Raman. Such a modification would involve applying a known technique to a known method ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
8. Claim 75 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worrall (US 2019/0354753 A1) in view of Rosse (US Patent No. 6,640,212 B1) and Bone et al. (US 2016/0133119 A1), and further in view of Stephenson (US 2013/0223707 A1).
Regarding claim 75, the combination of Worrall, Rosse and Bone does not appear to explicitly disclose receiving at least one weight from the mobile device associated with the supervising user, wherein the score is calculated based on the at least one weight. However, Stephenson discloses the concept and advantages of calculating a performance score based on weighted average for one or more criteria were known to those of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (Par. 115). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination of Worrall, Rosse and Bone by receiving a weight and calculating the score based on the weight, as taught by Stephenson, to obtain predictable results of putting emphasis on desired aspects of the handwashing performance.
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 18 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under section 101, Applicant argues the claims recite a tangible improvement to a mirror for monitoring hygiene. This is not persuasive. Instead, the claims merely utilize an electronic mirror (which represents routine and conventional technology) to provide a hygiene score to a user. This is not sufficient to direct the claimed judicial exception to significantly more; instead, it only generally links the abstract idea of analyzing hand hygiene to the area of mirrors with displays.
Regarding the section 103 rejection, Applicant argues that the Rosse reference does not disclose a mobile device associated with a supervising user configured to receive the hygiene criterion. However, Worrall is relied upon for a supervisor mobile device, and Rosse is merely relied upon for the idea of receiving handwashing criteria from a supervisor. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant further argues that Rosse does not describe a score sent “in real time to the electronic display of the mirror”. However, Rosse is not relied upon for this feature. Instead, as detailed above Worrall discloses real time feedback including a score (feedback, including score, provided during handwashing – Par. 68), and Bone discloses providing handwashing feedback on a display of a mirror during handwashing (see e.g. Par. 51, 62). Therefore, the combination of Worrall and Bone render this feature obvious.
Conclusion
10. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER EGLOFF whose telephone number is (571)270-3548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Peter R Egloff/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715