DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) one or more databases which store collection results, analysis results and a resident data along with a computer program. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the one or more databases do not add a meaningful limitation to the mental process because they amount to simply implementing the mental process on a database (computer) and to extract data and do nothing with the extracted data. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only other structure is one or more databases which is well understood routine and conventional across all arts.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) one or more databases a server, a facility terminal and to receive information and to extract the information but do nothing with the extracted information. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the facility terminal does not add a meaningful limitation to the mental process because the terminal amounts to simply implementing the mental process on a terminal. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the only other structures are one or more databases, a server and a facility terminal which are all well understood routine and conventional across all arts.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Application Publication No. 2020/0385296, hereinafter Garcia.
Regarding claim 1, Garcia teaches an infectious disease testing method (abstract) comprising: collecting a sample from a sewage during a collecting period (paragraph [0012]) from a channel up to where the sewage, which is discharged from a facility, flows into a public sewer pipe (figure 3 and paragraph [0012]); analyzing the collected sample to obtain information relating to the presence of an infectious pathogen in the sample (paragraphs [0009] and [0013]); and notifying the facility of the information and of an actual collecting period representing a period from an actual beginning to an end of the collecting the same (paragraph [0088]), wherein the reported information and the actual collecting period show that an infected person with the infectious pathogen was a resident of the facility at least during the actual collecting period (paragraph [0088]).
Regarding claim 2, Garcia teaches wherein the sample is collected from a wastewater basin into which drainage, within the facility sewage, flows from a toilet in the facility (figure 3).
Regarding claim 3, Garcia teaches further comprising: identifying, within the facility sewage, a collecting location where the sample should be collected and/or the collecting period (figure 3 and paragraph [0031]).
Regarding claim 4, Garcia teaches wherein a sampling absorber (item 134) used for collecting the sample is recovered after being detained in the sewage (paragraph [0021]), and a substance retained in the sampling absorber is recovered as the sample (paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 5, Garcia teaches further comprising: when the information and the actual collecting period shows that the infected person was a resident of the facility during the actual collecting period (paragraph [0088]), comparing the actual collecting period to each residence period of each resident of the facility (paragraph [0092]); identifying at least some of residents having residence periods which overlap to the actual collecting period, wherein the identified at least some of residents are tested (paragraphs [0088] and [0092]).
Regarding claim 7, Garcia teaches an infectious disease managing system (figure 1) comprising: one or more databases (items S140 and S150) including: a collection results database (item S140) that stores a sample collected from sewage in a channel up to where the sewage, which is discharged from a facility, flows into a public sewer pipe during a collecting period and the information for identifying the sample, wherein the collection results database stores an actual collecting period representing a period from an actual beginning to an end of the collecting the sample (paragraph [0008]); an analysis results database (item S150) that stores, together with information for identifying the sample, information relating to the presence of an infectious pathogen in the sample, which information was obtained by analyzing the sample (paragraph [0071]); a resident database (figure 1, “sewer map”) for recording information that identifies a resident in the facility, together with a residence period during which said resident resided in the facility (paragraph [0011]); and a computer program (paragraph [0011]) able to access the one or more databases to: when information relating to the presence of an infectious pathogen in the sample and the actual collecting period shows that an infected person with the infectious pathogen may have been among the residents of the facility at least during the actual collecting period (paragraphs [0088] and [0092]), extract a list of said residents whose periods of residences in the facility overlap the actual collecting period based on data stored in the one or more databases (paragraphs [0088] and [0092]).
The examiner notes that claim 7 recites “one or more databases” and then further recites three different databases and what the databases store. These limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Garcia and the apparatus of Garcia is capable of using the databases as described. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of Garcia (see MPEP §2114).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia in view of United States Application Publication No. 2018/0047554, hereinafter Takats.
Regarding claim 6, Garcia teaches all limitations of claim 4; however, Garcia is silent with regards to specific material used for the solid-phase extraction, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional materials for solid-phase extraction. Takats provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use a polymer for solid-phase extraction (Takats, paragraph [0152]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the material of the solid-phase extraction from a polymer motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of Takats.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia in view of United States Patent No. 5,319,543, hereinafter Wilhelm.
Regarding claim 8, Garcia teaches all limitations of claim 7; however, Garcia fails to teach a facility database for storing information that identifies the facility, the information that identifies the facility includes a login ID and a password, and the computer program provides input accepting means for accepting input of the login ID and the password, means for verifying the login ID and password, and display means for displaying, with respect to the facility corresponding to the verified login ID, information relating to the presence of an infectious pathogen in the sample and a list of the residents.
Wilhelm teaches a workflow server and system with a terminal in which a user can sign on to the system by entering a username and password and if the system determines, based on previously entered information stored in the system, that a valid user identification code has been entered, and that the proper password for that user identification code has been entered, access to further features of the system is allowed (Wilhelm, columns 4-5, lines 67-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a facility terminal and had a program which compares a received facility ID and password because it would allow for when a proper password for that user identification code has been entered, access to further features of the system is allowed (Wilhelm, columns 4-5, lines 67-7).
Regarding claim 9, modified Garcia teaches all limitations of claim 8; however, modified Garcia, as described above, fails to teach a server accessible to the one or more databases; and one or more terminals accessible to the server via a network, wherein the server includes a collection managing program executed by the server to: display a web page to receive the information for identifying the sample and the actual collecting period from a collecting business terminal of the one or more terminals, and the server includes an analysis managing program executed by the server to: display a web page to receive the information relating to a presence of an infectious pathogen in the collected sample from an analysis business terminal of the one or more terminals.
Wilhelm further teaches a server accessible (Wilhelm, column 4, lines 14-17, file server) to the one or more databases; and one or more terminals accessible to the server via a network (Wilhelm, columns 4-5, lines 67-7), wherein the server includes a collection managing program executed by the server to: display a web page to receive the information for identifying the sample and the actual collecting period from a collecting business terminal of the one or more terminals (Wilhelm, column 4, lines 9-24), and the server includes an analysis managing program executed by the server to: display a web page to receive the information relating to a presence of an infectious pathogen in the collected sample from an analysis business terminal of the one or more terminals (Wilhelm, column 4, lines 9-24) so that records can be inputted into the system and then retrieved when desired (Wilhelm, column 4, lines 9-24).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a server which is connected to the terminal which displays a page to receive information and display the results from the received information because it would allow records to be inputted into the system and then retrieved when desired (Wilhelm, column 4, lines 9-24).
Regarding claim 10, modified Garcia teaches wherein the computer program is executed by the server or a facility terminal of the one or more terminals (see supra).
Regarding claim 11, Garcia teaches an infectious disease managing system (figure 1), comprising: one or more databases (items S140 and S150); a server (computer system) accessible to the one or more databases (figure 1 and paragraph [0052]); and a computer program to: receive information relating to a presence of an infectious pathogen in a sample and actual collecting period (paragraph [0088]), wherein the sample is collected from a sewage during a collecting period from a channel up to where the sewage, which is discharged from a facility, flows into a public sewer pipe (figure 3 and paragraph [0012]), the actual collecting period representing a period from an actual beginning to an end of the collecting the sample from the one or more databases (paragraph [0088]); and in accordance with the information relating to the presence of the infectious pathogen in the sample and the actual collecting period representing that an infected person with the infectious pathogen was presence in the facility during the actual collecting period (paragraphs [0088] and [0092]), extract a list of one or more residents whose residence periods overlap the actual collecting period from the one or more databases (paragraphs [0088] and [0092]).
Garcia fails to teach a facility terminal accessible to the server via a network, the facility terminal including a computer program executed by the facility terminal to: compare a received facility ID and password with information identifying a facility stored in the one or more database.
Wilhelm teaches a workflow server and system with a terminal in which a user can sign on to the system by entering a username and password and if the system determines, based on previously entered information stored in the system, that a valid user identification code has been entered, and that the proper password for that user identification code has been entered, access to further features of the system is allowed (Wilhelm, columns 4-5, lines 67-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have added a facility terminal and had a program which compares a received facility ID and password because it would allow for when a proper password for that user identification code has been entered, access to further features of the system is allowed (Wilhelm, columns 4-5, lines 67-7).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571)270-7698. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796