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 .
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on March 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
3. Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on March 18, 2026.
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 8 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 terms “high body temperature”, “high importance”, and “low body temperature” in claim 8 are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite.
The terms “high, importance, and low” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1-2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugimoto (JP 2018-84975 – English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Sugimoto discloses an information processing system comprising: a terminal (display device 41 with a touch panel) used by a user; at least one memory (RAM 33) that is configured to store instructions; and at least one processor (CPU) that is configured to execute the instructions to detect at least one of a position of contact by the user and a position in which droplets of saliva of the user are attached, in the terminal (touch panel); and identify a sanitization part to be sanitized of the terminal, on the basis of the at least one of the positions (see English translation and figures 3-5; “On the display device 41 with a touch panel, nine soft buttons b1 are arranged for the user to instruct the image forming apparatus 1 from “Setting 1” to “Setting 9”. Here, it is assumed that the user touches a part of the “setting 3” soft button b1 with the contaminated finger f1. Similarly, it is assumed that the user touches a part of the “setting 6” soft button b1 with the contaminated finger f2 and touches a part of the “setting 7” soft button b1 with the contaminated finger f3.
Since the pathogen of the infectious disease contained in the saliva or the like attached to the fingers f1 to f3 is transferred to the part touched by the contaminated fingers f1 to f3, other users who are not infected with the finger f1 When touching the part touched by f3, there is a high possibility that the pathogen is transferred to this user. For this reason, the part which the fingers f1-f3 touched by the area identification part 61 is identified as a contaminated area, and the part which the fingers f1-f3 are not touching is identified as a non-contaminated area.
When the display possibility determination unit 62 determines that the soft button b1 can be displayed in the non-contaminated area, the data obtained by changing the display position of the soft button b1 by the button display position changing unit 67 is output as the soft button. The data is output from the unit 63 to the display device 41 with a touch panel. For this reason, as shown in the lower side of FIG. Specifically, the soft button b2 moved to a position avoiding the place touched with the contaminated fingers f1 to f3 is displayed. The soft button b1 before movement is represented by a broken line in the figure. This display of moving soft buttons is called “moving display”. Thereby, other users who are not infected can touch and operate the moved soft button b2. And it can prevent that a pathogen transfers to other users who are not infected.”).
Regarding claim 2, Sugimoto discloses wherein the at least one processor (CPU) is configured to execute the instructions to detect the position of contact by the user, by using a touch panel (41) or camera (43) provided in the terminal (see figures 3-5; see English translation).
Regarding claim 4, Sugimoto discloses wherein the at least one processor (CPU) is configured to execute the instructions to detect the position in which droplets of saliva of the user are attached, by detecting a specific movement of the user (see English translation; “the user detection unit 60 included in the control unit 30 detects the user on the basis of the video in which the range in which the operation unit can be operated is captured by the imaging unit 43, and splashes generated from the user fly to the operation unit. Analyzes whether or not. For this reason, the operation unit is also photographed in the video. When it is analyzed by the user detection unit 60 that the splash has blown to the operation unit, the area identification unit 61 acquires the first and second received light amounts from the photosensors 49a and 49b. Then, the area identifying unit 61 reads the received light amount data 31a from the storage unit 31, and identifies the non-contaminated area and the contaminated area.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yao (JP 11053113 A).
Sugimoto is set forth above with regards to claim 1 but does not appear to disclose instructions to sanitize the contaminated area. Yao discloses (para [0018]-[0028]) a display input device that determines whether unwanted objects such as stains, dirt, and dust are adhered on an input surface (2), and has a cleaning means for performing cleaning by moving a cleaning means (6) to a position on the input surface (2) at which it is determined that there are unwanted objects (para [0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Sugimoto to include instructions in the controller to sanitize the contaminated surface as taught by Yao whom discloses detecting and cleaning a contaminated surface of a display improves overall hygiene.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 3 and 5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest “wherein the terminal includes a movable part, and the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to determine whether or not a baggage of the user is placed on the terminal, on the basis of behavior when the movable part is driven, and detects a part in which the baggage is placed, as the position of contact by the user.”, in the claimed environment.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach or fairly suggest “wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to detect a part in which there is a temperature change in the terminal, as the position in which droplets of saliva of the user are attached.”, in the claimed environment.
9. Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 8, the prior art, alone or in combination, does not teach or fairly suggest wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to measure a body temperature of the user, and set the sanitization part identified when the sanitization part is used by the user with a high body temperature, to be of high importance of the sanitization, as compared with the sanitization part identified when the sanitization part is used by the user with a low body temperature, in the claimed environment.
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN E CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8414. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:30am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike Marcheschi can be reached on 571-272-1374. 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).
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights