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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 09/22/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are pending in the application, where claim 3 has been withdrawn. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the abstract specification objection from the previously filed Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 103 rejections of independent claims 1 and 5 are moot based on a new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cobler (US 12057896 B2) in view of Raj et al. (US 20230276198 A1) and further in view of Ganesan et al. (US 20170373892 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cobler discloses [Note: what Cobler fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
A contact degree confirmation apparatus (see col. 2, lines 20-38, device for sensing proximity contact data with a contact tracing system) comprising:
a first signal reception unit (see Fig. 2, transceiver element 230), (see col 5, lines 22-25, the proximity sensing devices are configured to transmit and receive device identifiers);
an infected person information acquisition unit configured to acquire identification information of a user that has caught an infectious disease that could be transmitted by droplet infection (see Fig. 2, memory element 250; col. 6, lines 62-65, “The memory 250 may include any known memory for storing data and is configured to store proximity contact data including at least the received device identifiers”; col. 4, lines 25-32, the data can be stored in the contact tracing system and used to take action when an individual is determined to be at risk for an infectious disease);
a first received signal strength indicator measurement unit configured to measure a first received signal strength indicator (see Fig. 3, processing element 246; col. 9, lines 25-27, the receive signal digital processing circuitry 246 may also be configured to determine the detected signal strength”);
a contact degree evaluation unit configured to, when identification information included in the radio signal received by the first signal reception unit coincides with identification information of the infected user, evaluate the degree of contact with the signal transmitter based on a total value of the first received signal strength indicator measured by the first received signal strength indicator measurement unit in a first predetermined period (see Fig. 4, proximity sensing device element 210-1, signal data 253-256, including identification and signal strength, is taken into account; Fig. 5, proximity contact database element 222; col. 11, lines 3-6, the contact tracing system can use the data the identify proximity contact),
wherein the first signal reception unit is worn on a predetermined position of a person wearing a contact degree confirmation apparatus (see col. 4, lines 22-23, “the proximity sensing devices are wearable by the individuals”) to have reception directivity in a front direction of a face of the person wearing the contact degree confirmation apparatus (see col. 3, lines 45-49, the device detects the direction of transmitted and received signals within a range)
Raj discloses [Note: what Raj fails to clearly disclose is strike-through]
a first signal reception unit, (see Fig. 2, transceiver element 240; see pg. 7, paragraph 0066, “The wireless transceiver 240 may be configured to communicate signals (e.g., with TRPs and/or one or more other devices) according to a variety of radio access technologies”),
a second signal reception unit, (see Fig. 2, transceiver element 240; pg. 7, paragraph 0066, “the transmitter 242 may include multiple transmitters that may be discrete components or combined/integrated components, and/or the receiver 244 may include multiple receivers”);
a first received signal strength indicator measurement unit configured to measure a first received signal strength indicator of the radio signal (see pg. 2, paragraph 0007, the measurement signals are received by radio access technologies, and “the at least one processor may be further configured to determine a received signal strength indication”)
a second received signal strength indicator measurement unit configured to measure a second received signal strength indicator of the radio signal received by the second signal reception unit (see Fig. 7, access point elements 556-2; pg. 11, paragraph 0086, the multiple network APs 556-2 may determine a signal strength measurement); and
wherein when identification information included in the radio signal received by the second signal reception unit coincides with identification information of the infected user and the second received signal strength indicator measured by the second received signal strength indicator measurement unit in a second predetermined period is a predetermined strength or greater, the contact degree evaluation unit evaluates the degree of contact based on the first received signal strength indicator (see Fig. 15; pg. 16, paragraph 0104, the device considers identification information, signal strength, and other measurements of the received signals to determine contact proximity; pg. 1, paragraph 0005, “the one or more contact tracing configuration options may include one or more of a social distance threshold value, a contact time threshold value”).
Ganesan discloses
an antenna having directional (see pg. 9, paragraph 0079, “In some embodiments… a 9 dBi directional gain antenna can used with the tag 740”)
with an antenna not having directional (see pg. 9, paragraph 0079, “in some other embodiments a standard 3 dBI omnidirectional antenna can be used with the tag 740”),
by the antenna having directional of the first signal reception unit (see Fig. 3, tag 340 can be connected to a receiver reception units)
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Raj and Ganesan into the invention of Cobler. Both Cobler and Raj are considered analogous arts to the claimed invention as they both disclose wearable devices for sensing and tracing infectious disease contact among users. Ganesan is considered an analogous art to the claimed invention as Ganesan discloses wearable sensor devices that can send signals between other wearable sensor devices. Cobler discloses most of the units of the apparatus of claim 1; however, Cobler fails to disclose directional and non-directional antennas, a second signal reception unit, a second received signal strength indicator measurement unit, comparing signals from the reception units, and radio signals, and instead discloses magnetic field signals. Raj discloses radio signals a where the device is configured to receive and transmit radio signals, multiple reception units and measurement units, and comparing signals from reception units. Ganesan discloses directional and non-directional antennas being used in a wearable device. The combination of Cobler, Raj, and Ganesan would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase accessibility and range of the device because radio signals may be able to connect to Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, or cellular networks (see Raj pg. 1 paragraph 0003), resulting in a greater range for users and making the invention more easily implemented into existing infrastructure. The combination would also be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to allow for processing multiple signals simultaneously to increase efficiency in detection for contact tracing when multiple signals are present, for example in an environment with a large crowd of users, as well as improving signal detection efficiency with directional antennas, or increasing signal detection range with non-directional antennas.
Regarding claim 2, Cobler further discloses
The contact degree confirmation apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the contact degree evaluation unit calculates an apparent distance from the signal transmitter based on the first received signal strength indicator (see col. 9, lines 28-31, the processing circuitry can be used to estimate the proximal distance between the devices when the strength of the signal is known), and evaluates the degree of contact based on a total value of the apparent distances (see col. 9, lines 31-33, “the proximity sensing device 210 may be configured to estimate the distance to another proximity sensing device for purposes of proximity detection”) with respect to a predetermined reference distance (see col. 5, lines 40-44, the sensing devices may have a defined range that corresponds to a transmission range of the infectious disease).
Regarding claim 4, Raj further discloses
The contact degree confirmation apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the contact degree evaluation unit evaluates the degree of contact based on a total value of the first received signal strength indicator in the second predetermined period (see pg. 12, paragraph 0089, “The UE may also be configured to obtain the measurements periodically (e.g., every 1, 5, 10, 20, 100, secs. etc.)”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Raj into the inventions of Cobler and Ganesan. Cobler and Ganesan fail to disclose a second predetermined period for the signal strength indicator. This feature is disclosed by Raj where the device is configured to obtain periodic measurements for various signal parameters. The combination of Cobler, Ganesan, and Raj would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve signal detection and determine a more accurate origin of received signals when multiple signals are present for a long period of time, for example in a crowded venue.
Regarding claim 5, the same cited section and rationale from claim 1 is applied. Cobler further discloses
A contact degree confirmation system (see col. 2, lines 20-38, device for sensing proximity contact data with a contact tracing system) comprising:
a signal transmitter (see Fig. 2, transceiver element 230); and
a contact degree confirmation apparatus (see col. 2, lines 20-38, device for sensing proximity contact data with a contact tracing system),
wherein:
the signal transmitter includes a signal transmission unit that transmits a radio signal including identification information of a user wearing the signal transmitter (see col. 3, lines 7-11, “The transceiver further includes a processor coupled to the transmit circuitry and to the receive circuitry and configured to process a transmit digital signal encoding at least a device identifier for transmission by the transmit circuitry”);
Regarding claim 6, Cobler further discloses
The contact degree confirmation apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the antenna having directional has reception directivity corresponding to a direction of the person (see col. 5, lines 44-47, “The wearable device may be configured to be worn or carried with the same general orientation by each of the users in order to facilitate the proximity magnetic communication”).
Regarding claim 7, Ganesan discloses
The contact degree confirmation apparatus according to Claim 6, wherein the antenna not having directional is an omnidirectional antenna, and has transmission directivity oriented in all directions (see pg. 9, paragraph 0079, “in some other embodiments a standard 3 dBI omnidirectional antenna can be used with the tag 740”).
It would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the features as disclosed by Ganesan into the inventions of Cobler and Raj. Cobler and Raj fail to disclose an omnidirectional antenna. This feature is disclosed by Ganesan where the antenna in the wearable device may be an omnidirectional antenna. The combination of Cobler, Raj, and Ganesan would be obvious with a reasonable expectation of success in order to increase signal detection range, allowing for more range of contact degree detection ability.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISABELLA AMEYALI EDRADA whose telephone number is (571)272-4859. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm EST.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at (571) 272-7753. 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.
/ISABELLA AMEYALI EDRADA/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648