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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is responsive to the preliminary amendment filed August 01, 2023. As directed by the amendment, claims 16-20 have been added.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: see MPEP 608.01(m), “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period”, claim 6 does not end with a period. 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:
a contactless sensor configured to obtain health readings of a subject in claim 1, 8 and 9; and
a user interface configured to interactively obtain information from the subject in response to prompts in claim 1, 8 and 10.
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.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 recites in part “… wherein the premise screens subjects…” i.e., the claim provide further limitations to a premise that is not previously positively recited, thus rendering claim 6 indefinite.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Doherty et al., US 11113913 B1 ("Doherty").
Regarding claim 1, Doherty discloses a communication device (user device 102, offsite sensor 104 and access server 110 of system 100 - Fig. 1) for touch-free infectious disease screening, comprising: a memory that stores instructions ([col. 20: 20-36]); a contactless sensor configured to obtain health readings of a subject ([col. 3, paragraph from line 12, offsite sensor 104 maybe a non-contact temperature sensor, integrated in user device 102 that obtains health readings); a user interface configured to interactively obtain information from the subject in response to prompts ([col. 6, paragraph from line 19] “The remote sensor 104 may emit a scent and ask the user (e.g., via a menu on a screen)to identify the scent” - menu on a screen is an equivalent thereof user interface discussed in page 8, lines 13-20 of specification as filed); and a processor that executes the instructions ([col. 20: 20-36]), wherein, when executed by the processor, the instructions cause the communication device to: measure vital signs based on the health readings of the subject (paragraph bridging col. 5-6 - temperature is measured); control the user interface to present the prompts, and interpret the information interactively obtained from the subject in response to the prompts (col. 6 paragraph from line 19 - remote sensor 104 may indicate the user has anosmia based on response to prompts); and encode results of measuring the vital signs and interpreting the information in a two-dimensional visualizable code, wherein, access to a premise is conditioned on the two-dimensional visualizable code (col. 7, paragraph from line 15, regarding generating approval notification that can be used by a user to demonstrate access, such as a barcode or QR-code).
Regarding claim 2, see discussion in claim 1 above, offsite sensor is remote from a premise and discussion in col. 8, paragraph from line 4 “… the access server 110 may transmit an approval notification to another user device, such as a guard computing device or kiosk. In some embodiments, the access server 110 may transmit the approval to a computing device or component, such as a turnstile, gate, elevator, or the like, that can open or activate to allow the user to enter”.
Regarding claim 3, see paragraph bridging col. 5-6, regarding screening for illness e.g., COVID-19 infection, if user has anosmia (paragraph from line 19 in col. 6) or febrile (paragraph from line 55 in col. 6).
Regarding claims 4-5, see col. 6 paragraph from line 37 to col. 7, line 14, regarding user identification data including an image e.g., selfie of the user with time stamp information that are used to grant access, col. 4, lines 7-10 “the access server 110 may verify biometric characteristics at a first point in time separate from an access determination and user authentication” i.e., it is determined whether the subject is infected, prior to user authentication which requires identification data, and granting access within a time frame as discussed in claim 1 above, the approval notification is encoded in a two dimensional visualization code such as a barcode or QR-code (col. 7, paragraph from line 15), the method as disclosed in Fig. 5, at 504 a denial may be issued based on biometric characteristics ending the process at 514.
Regarding claim 6, see col. 8 paragraph from line 8 regarding approval notification transmitted to another user device such as guard computing device or kiosk, see also col. 15, paragraph from line 34, QR-code or indicia 120 is received via machine vision, optical character recognition, bar code scanning etc.
Regarding claim 7, see col. 6 paragraph from line 19 - remote sensor 104 may emit a scent and ask a user (e.g., via a menu of a screen) to identify the scent reads on a questionnaire comprising predetermined questions.
Claims 9, 11-12, 15-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant cited Lim WO 2011005224 A1.
Regarding claim 9, Lim discloses a security gateway for touch-free infectious disease screening (page 11, lines 8-12 “kiosk 300”), comprising: a contactless sensor configured to obtain health readings of a subject (page 11, lines 30-31 “infrared thermometer”); a memory that stores instructions; and a processor that executes the instructions, wherein, when executed by the processor, the instructions cause the security gateway to: measure vital signs based on the health readings of the subject (page 11, lines 30-31 “… if it is verified through the scanning of the QR-code and the 1 D barcode that the user is using his own QR-code, the user's body temperature is measured by an infrared thermometer”); and determine whether to allow access to a premise based on the vital signs (page 11, line 31 to page 12 line 3, step 416 to deny access or step 418 to allow access via a pass based on the vital sign).
Regarding claims 11-12, 16 and 20, see Fig. 4 and associated discussion in page 11 line 8 to page 12 line 3, regarding refusing access based on QR-code [claim 11], measuring temperature and determining if the subject is infected [claim 12], and regarding “infrared thermometer” [claim 16] for temperature measurement/detection [claim 20].
Regarding claim 18, see page 11, lines 36 to page 12 line 3, a score is embedded in the QR-code (i.e., a two dimensional visualizable code) that is used to determine whether to allow access to a premise.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doherty in view of Lim
Regarding claim 8, discloses a method for touch-free infectious disease screening, the method comprising: storing first instructions in a first memory of a communication device (user device 102, offsite sensor 104 and access server 110 of system 100 - Fig. 1 read on a communication device, [col. 20: 20-36] regarding memory and instructions); obtaining first health readings of a subject via a first contactless sensor of the communication device ([col. 3, paragraph from line 12, offsite sensor 104 maybe a non-contact temperature sensor, integrated in user device 102 that obtains a first health reading); interactively obtaining first information from the subject in response to first prompts via a first user interface of the communication device (col. 6 paragraph from line 19 - remote sensor 104 may indicate the user has anosmia based on response to prompts); and executing the first instructions by a first processor of the communication device (i.e., processor associated with user device 102, offsite sensor 104 and access server 110) ; storing second instructions in a second memory of a security gateway (processor associated with another user device, such as a guard computing device or kiosk - col. 8: 5-8); and executing the second instructions by a second processor of the security gateway, wherein, when executed by the first processor of the communication device, the first instructions cause the communication device to: measure first vital signs based on the first health readings of the subject (vital signs e.g., temperature is obtained); control the first user interface of the communication device to present the first prompts, and interpret the first information interactively obtained from the subject in response to the first prompts (col. 6 paragraph from line 19 for ansomia); and encode first results of measuring the first vital signs and of interpreting the first information in a two-dimensional visualizable code (col. 7, paragraph from line 15, regarding generating approval notification that can be used by a user to demonstrate access, such as a barcode or QR-code); wherein, when executed by the second processor of the security gateway, the second instructions cause the security gateway to: scan the first user interface of the communication device to obtain the two-dimensional visualizable code; decode the two-dimensional visualizable code; determine whether the subject is authorized to access a premise based on the two- dimensional visualizable code(col. 15, paragraph from line 34, “The system 100 may receive the indicia 120, and/or the data associated with the indicia 120, by any suitable method including machine vision; optical character recognition; bar code scanning”, note, the another user device such as a guard computing device or kiosk is a component of system 100 as user device 102).
Doherty does not explicitly disclose when the subject is not authorized to access the premise based on the two-dimensional visualizable code: obtain second health readings of a subject via a second contactless sensor of the security gateway; interactively obtain second information from the subject in response to second prompts via a second user interface of the security gateway; measure second vital signs based on the second health readings of the subject; and control the second user interface of the security gateway to present the second prompts, and interpret the second information interactively obtained from the subject in response to the second prompts, and wherein, access to the premise is conditional based on the second vital signs and the second information (i.e., perform or determine user status at the gateway).
However, Lim discloses a security gateway for touch-free infectious disease screening (page 11, lines 8-12 “kiosk 300”), comprising: a contactless sensor configured to obtain health readings of a subject (page 11, lines 30-31 “infrared thermometer”); a memory that stores instructions; and a processor that executes the instructions, wherein, when executed by the processor, the instructions cause the security gateway to: measure vital signs based on the health readings of the subject (page 11, lines 30-31 “… if it is verified through the scanning of the QR-code and the 1 D barcode that the user is using his own QR-code, the user's body temperature is measured by an infrared thermometer”); and determine whether to allow access to a premise based on the vital signs (page 11, line 31 to page 12 line 3, step 416 to deny access or step 418 to allow access via a pass based on the vital sign).
In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to have modified the security gateway of Doherty to include a processor with instructions to determine whether to allow access based on vital signs and to allow access based on the determination, so as to evaluate a user for suitability of access in the event that the user condition may have improved to meet the institution standards since the subject was evaluate offsite.
Claims 10, 13-15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Doherty.
Regarding claim 10, Lim discloses the security gateway of claim 9 as discussed above, but does not disclose the aspect of a user interface and a processor that controls the security gateway to present prompts, wherein the information interactively obtained from the subject in response to prompts is interactively obtained via a questionnaire comprising predetermined questions, and wherein, whether to allow access to the premise is determined further based on the information interactively obtained from the subject.
However, Doherty discloses a user interface configured to interactively obtain information from the subject in response to prompts ([col. 6, paragraph from line 19] “The remote sensor 104 may emit a scent and ask the user (e.g., via a menu on a screen)to identify the scent” - menu on a screen is an equivalent thereof user interface discussed in page 8, lines 13-20 of specification as filed) reads on a questionnaire comprising predetermined questions. Doherty teaches in col. 6: line 7-11 “Sensing more than one biometric characteristic may increase screening accuracy for certain illnesses. For example, screening for COVID-19 infection may be more accurate if temperature and sense of smell are both assessed”.
In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to have modified the security gateway of Lim to include a user interface and a processor that controls the security gateway to present prompts, wherein the information interactively obtained from the subject in response to prompts is interactively obtained via a questionnaire comprising predetermined questions, and wherein, whether to allow access to the premise is determined further based on the information interactively obtained from the subject as taught by Doherty, to increase screening accuracy for illness that require more than one biometric characteristic that may involve a user responding to questions.
Regarding claim 13, Lim discloses the method of claim 9 as discussed above, a camera is disclosed configured to obtain an image of the subject that are compared to stored facial images in a local database to determine user’s identity (page 10, lines 1-10). Lim does not explicitly disclose the processor is configured to cause the gateway to obtain first biomarkers of the subject from an image taken by a communication device of the subject; obtain second biomarkers of the subject from the image taken by the security gateway, and compare the first biomarkers to the second biomarkers.
Doherty in the same field of endeavor of controlling access based on detected characteristics e.g., temperature and user identification ([col. 2: paragraph from line 33]), discloses obtain first biomarkers of the subject from an image taken by a communication device of the subject; obtain second biomarkers of the subject from the image taken by the security gateway, and comparing the first biomarkers to the second biomarkers by a processor, for authentication purposes (see paragraph bridging col. 3-4, access server or processor receives information from user device 102, onsite sensors 108 and/or offsite sensors 104 to determine whether a person is granted access. “… the access server 110 may first receive biometric data and determine that a person has satisfied the biological requirements ( e.g., is not febrile) to enter the access controlled area 15 and then may detect the person attempting to enter the access controlled area and verify the person's identity and access level, to allow access” i.e., biometric data include images from user device 102 for authentication to generate the access authorization, and further receive user image from onsite sensor 108 to verify identity to allow access.
In view of these teaching, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to apply the teachings of Doherty and modify the processor of Lim to cause the gateway to obtain first biomarkers of the subject from an image taken by a communication device of the subject to generate an authorization code remotely and further obtain second biomarkers of the subject from the image taken at the security gateway, and compare the first biomarkers to the second biomarkers, to verify the person identity at the security gateway, to allow access..
Regarding claims 14-15, 17 and 19, Lim discloses in page 7, paragraph from line 25 a validity period of a QR-code for a predetermined time period, but does not explicitly disclose recording a timestamp of when image of the subject was obtained [claims 14 and 19]; Lim discloses a camera, wherein the security gateway is configured to obtain images of the subject, screen subjects using health reading obtained from contactless sensor for contact tracing (see discussion associated with Fig. 4 in paragraph from line 8 in page 11), but does not explicitly disclose tacking movements of the subject [claim 15]; or wherein the contactless sensor comprises an RGB camera [claim 19].
However, Doherty in the same field of endeavor of controlling access based on detected characteristics e.g., temperature and user identification, discloses wherein the access control system transmits user detected characteristics along with a user identifier (e.g., self-captured, time stamped, captured image of the user ([col. 2: paragraph from line 33] - i.e., teaches time stamping when an image was captured), Doherty also teaches the use of an onsite sensor 108 that can detect characteristics of users by capturing images data e.g., RGB and/or depth information, of persons within a particular range ([col. 3, paragraph from line 43]) and tracking movements of users (col. 8, paragraph from line 4 and col. 20, paragraph from line 7] to assist with contact tracing).
In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to have modified Lim to include time stamping when an image of a user is captured, for authentication purposes with other metadata as taught by Doherty in Col. 10, paragraph from line 61, to include tracking of movement of subjects using the captured images, to assist with contact tracing by being able to quickly generate lists of other users that have accessed similar areas at similar times as the subject as taught in Col. 20 paragraph from line 7, and/or modify the contactless sensor to include an RGB camera, so as to detect characteristics of a user, such as red eyes for diagnosis purposes ([col. 3, paragraph from line 43 and col. 6, paragraph from line 55]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONIFACE N NGANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 5:30 am - 4:00 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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/BONIFACE N NGANGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797