Detailed Notice
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 .
Status of Claims
A 2nd Non-Final has been issued.
Claims 1-13, and 15-17 are currently pending.
Claims 1-13, and 15-17 are amended.
Claims 1-13, and 15-17 are rejected.
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 1-13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
In the instant case, claims 1-13 and 15 are directed toward an information processing system (i.e., machine), claim 16 is directed toward an information processing method (i.e. a process), and claim 17 is directed toward a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., manufacture). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A—Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 16, and 17 recites steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitations of a certain method of organizing human activity and/or mental process but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Claim 16 recites: “An information processing method by which a computer executes a process comprising: acquiring information that includes at least one of sharing information indicating a state of sharing of a control device, presence information indicating a state of presence of a person in a predetermined region where the control device is used, an examination order pertaining on imaging and examination by a device to be controlled, or date and time information indicating date and time of a present point of time, determining whether or not a predetermined condition is satisfied, based on the acquired information, recommending, as a method of inputting control information for controlling the device to be controlled to the control device, a noncontact input method of inputting the control information in a noncontact manner with the control device in a case in which it is determined that the predetermined condition is satisfied, displaying a screen with a content for recommending the noncontact input method on a display device in a case where the noncontact input method is recommended, and issuing a warning in a case where an input of the control information by the noncontact input method is recommended, and the input of the control information is executed by a method different from the noncontact input method”.
The limitations of acquire information that includes at least one of sharing information indicating a state of sharing, presence information indicating a state of presence of a person in a predetermined region, an examination order pertaining on imaging and examination, or date and time information indicating date and time of a present point of time, determine whether or not a predetermined condition is satisfied, based on the acquired information recommend, as a method of inputting control information, a noncontact input method of inputting the control information in a noncontact manner, in a case in which it is determined that the predetermined condition is satisfied, display with a content for recommending the noncontact input method in a case where the noncontact input method is recommended, and issue a warning in a case where an input of the control information by the noncontact input method is recommended, and the input of the control information is executed by a method different from the noncontact input method, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions—in this case the aforementioned steps recite a process of acquire, determining, inputting, display, recommending warning, and executed, which is properly interpreted as a “personal behavior”), and also encompass the abstract idea of a mental probes because a person/doctor/physician/nurse/patient/etc. is capable of performing the steps mentally (in the mind) or via pen and paper, but instead automates the process via a computer model, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements”, and will be discussed in further detail below.
Further, the abstract idea of claims 1 and 17 are identical as the abstract idea of claim 16. This limitation, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, also falls under the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15 include other limitations, as well as specific step of data to be processed, received, and applied, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea and do not add and additional elements, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 16, and 17. However, recitation of an abstract idea is not the end of the 35 U.S.C. 101 analysis. Each of the claims must be analyzed for additional elements that indicate the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application to determine whether the claim is considered to be “directed to” an abstract idea.
Step 2A—Prong 2:
Claims 1-13, and 15-17 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception—for example, the recitation of “device”, “image capturing device”, “sample examination device”, “physiological examination device”, “control device”, “information processing system”, “processor”, “computer”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “screen”, and “display device”, which amount to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see FIG. 1, and [0026], of the present specification, and see further MPEP 2106.05(f);
Generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, for example, “a device to be controlled that includes an image capturing device, a sample examination device, or a physiological examination device; a control device that controls the device to be controlled; and an information processing system including at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to”, “by which a computer executes a process comprising”, “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program that causes a computer to execute a process comprising”, “of the control device”, “where the control device is used”, “by the device to be controlled”, “for controlling the device to be controlled to the control device”, “with the control device”, “a screen”, and “on a display device”, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of technology/the environment of computers, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
Merely acquiring information for further analysis by the system and the particular manner of acquisition is not described or shown to be important, for example, “acquire information that includes at least one of sharing information indicating a state of sharing of the control device”, which amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering because it merely functions tangentially to the main idea of the invention and serves only to bring in the data necessary for the inventions main analysis, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-13 and 15 include other limitations, but as stated above, the limitations recited by these claims do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1, 16, and 17, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements (i.e., “device”, “image capturing device”, “sample examination device”, “physiological examination device”, “control device”, “information processing system”, “processor”, “computer”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “screen”, and “display device”) that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, which even when reevaluated under the considerations of Step 2B of the analysis, do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-13 and 15 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1, 16, and 17, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Additionally, the additional elements (i.e., “acquire information that includes at least one of sharing information indicating a state of sharing of the control device”), add extra solution activity, which comprises limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in a particular field as demonstrated by:
Relevant court decisions (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (emphasis added)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-13, and 15-17 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-13 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 20140195986 A1), hereinafter Li, in view of LEE et al. (US 20200279642 A1), hereinafter LEE, Steinle et al. (US 20160109960 A1), hereinafter Steinle, Sakuma et al. (US 20200225633 A1), hereinafter Sakuma, and Raichman et al. (US 20150254964 A1), hereinafter Raichman.
Regarding claim(s) 1, 16 ,and 17 Li teaches an information processing system comprising/an information processing method by which a computer executes a process comprising/a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program that causes a computer to execute a process comprising: a device to be controlled that includes an image capturing device (Li, [0048]: “As mentioned above, the tracking device 22 may be, for example, an optical or infrared camera. However, it should be noted that, as will be easily understood by the person skilled in the art, any tracking device, other than the optical or infrared camera, capable of tracking the motion information of the operator may be used”), a sample examination device, or a physiological examination device (Li, [0051]: “When the control device 23 receives the motion information of the operator from the tracking device 22, the control device 23 first interprets the motion information of the operator into operation information relating to the movement trajectory of a cursor in the GUI or the confirmation of the selection of an item in the GUI where the cursor locates, and then operates the GUI in accordance with the operation information so as to generate control commands for the one or more medical devices 12” and [0052]: “The system 11 further comprises an output device 24 connected to the control device 23, for outputting the generated control commands to the one or more medical devices 12”); a control device that controls the device to be controlled (Li, [0050]-[0052: “The control device 23 is connected to the display device 21 and the tracking device 22, and is in communication therewith… When the control device 23 receives the motion information of the operator from the tracking device 22, the control device 23 first interprets the motion information of the operator into operation information relating to the movement trajectory of a cursor in the GUI or the confirmation of the selection of an item in the GUI where the cursor locates, and then operates the GUI in accordance with the operation information so as to generate control commands for the one or more medical devices 12… The system 11 further comprises an output device 24 connected to the control device 23, for outputting the generated control commands to the one or more medical devices 12. The output device 24 may output the control commands to the medical device 12 in a wired or wireless way”); and an information processing device including at least one processor (Li, [0050]: “The system 11 further comprises a control device 23, which may be for example a central processor unit or a central controller unit in a computer. The control device 23 is connected to the display device 21 and the tracking device 22, and is in communication therewith”), wherein the at least one processor is configured to: recommend, as a method of inputting control information for controlling the device to be controlled to the control device (Li, [0024]-[0025]: “According to another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a medical device, which comprises an input device for receiving the control commands output by the system according to the present invention, and the medical device is characterized in that it can be operated in a dual-control mode” and claim 9: “The operation mode of the medical device is changed from conventional manual operation mode to remote control mode upon the reception of the control commands by the input device”), a noncontact input method of inputting the control information in a noncontact manner with the control device (Li, [0010]-[0011]: “Specifically, according to one aspect of the present invention, there is provided a contactless remote control system for an operator, enabling him to operate one or more medical devices in a contactless way” and [0026]: “According to another aspect of the present invention, there is provided a contactless remote control method enabling an operator to operate one or more medical devices in a contactless way”), the input of the control information is executed by a method different from the noncontact input method (Li, [0024]: “which comprises an input device for receiving the control commands output by the system according to the present invention, and the medical device is characterized in that it can be operated in a dual-control mode”, [0025]: “Specifically, the dual-control mode may include the conventional manual operation mode and the remote control mode. The medical device is different from conventional medical devices in that the operation mode thereof may be changed from conventional manual operation mode to remote control mode upon the reception of the control commands by the input device”, [0044]: “Similarly, the operator could go back to select another medical device 12 and operate it remotely. The operator can also switch off the remote control mode and operate the medical devices 12 in the conventional manual way if necessary.”, and [0019]: “In accordance with the present embodiment, all the operable medical devices are shown on the display device and the operator can remotely select the medical device he wants to operate by performing a respective motion, for example, by moving his finger in the air, as if he were operating a virtual touch screen. As a result, the contactless remote control system, in which the controls for all the medical devices are integrated into one control console, is achieved”, and [0069]-[0071]).
Li does not teach: determine whether or not a predetermined condition is satisfied, based on the acquired information and in a case in which it is determined that the predetermined condition is satisfied.
However, LEE teaches determine whether or not a predetermined condition is satisfied, based on the acquired information (LEE, [0024]: “In one or more embodiments, when the probability of transfer of pathogens between the user, the client device and the environment exceeds a predetermined risk threshold, a warning to the user is provided” and [0036]: “At block 109 of the warning module 108, the determined risk of contamination is checked against a predetermined threshold. If the threshold is exceeded, the system determined at block 110 whether critical risk threshold has been exceeded”) and in a case in which it is determined that the predetermined condition is satisfied (LEE, [0036]: “At block 109 of the warning module 108, the determined risk of contamination is checked against a predetermined threshold. If the threshold is exceeded, the system determined at block 110 whether critical risk threshold has been exceeded”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li to incorporate the teachings of LEE and account for model the risks of transferring pathogens from the phone to the HCWs hands and also to notify or warn the worker intelligently when mobile device use behaviors may result in a risky transfer of pathogens between the device and the worker's hands or a work surface (LEE, Abstract and [0004]).
Li and LEE do not teach issue a warning in a case where an input of the control information by the noncontact input method is recommended.
However, Steinle teaches issue a warning in a case where an input of the control information by the noncontact input method is recommended (Steinle, [0055]: “In other words, the various embodiments of the invention provide feedback to the user of a non-contact gesture control when actual physical contact with a non-sterile or otherwise contaminated screen is imminent”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li and LEE to incorporate the teachings of Steinle and account for medical image display system comprising such a feedback system and to a method of providing sterility-preserving feedback with respect to control or input gestures in a medical system (Steinle, Abstract).
Li, LEE, and Steinle do not teach acquire information that includes at least one of sharing information indicating a state of sharing of the control device.
However, Sukuma teaches acquire information that includes at least one of sharing information indicating a state of sharing of the control device (Sukuma, [0011]: “the editing unit sets all the control programs included in the second controller data to share with all the control programs included in the first controller data, and stores the sharing setting in the sharing setting table”, [0019]: “The editing unit assigns a mark indicating the sharing setting to the control program set to be shared, and displays the mark on the display unit”, [0031]: “(A) of FIG. 9 and (B) of FIG. 9 are enlarged diagrams of the multi-view explorer window when a control program in a shared state is present”, and [0038]: ‘The sharing setting table 122 stores that the control programs respectively included in the plurality of pieces of controller data are set to be shared”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li, LEE, and Steinle to incorporate the teachings of Sukuma and account for indicating sharing and sharing a control device (Sukuma, Abstract).
Li, LEE, Steinle, and Sukuma do not teach presence information indicating a state of presence of a person in a predetermined region where the control device is used, an examination order pertaining on imaging and examination by the device to be controlled, or date and time information indicating date and time of a present point of time.
However, Raichman teaches presence information indicating a state of presence of a person in a predetermined region where the control device is used, an examination order pertaining on imaging and examination by the device to be controlled, or date and time information indicating date and time of a present point of time (Raichman, [0071]: “According to some embodiments of the present invention, there are provided a hygiene monitoring name tag that includes sensors and/or location indicators of monitoring hygiene of a person and methods of using thereof. These embodiments allows using a hygiene monitoring name tag to monitor current hygiene level and/or to generate a hygiene habits score by detecting personal hygiene events and the presence of the monitored wearer in a potential contamination venue and/or the participation thereof in a potential contamination event”, [0090]: “Additionally or alternatively, the interchange detecting unit 302 comprises a presence sensor that detects whenever a new patient enters the medical treatment venue, for example an optical sensor and/or a proximity sensor, for example as defined above”, [0101]: “The detection is performed by going over the database 503 to identify persons which met the one or more infectious persons during a specified period and/or been at an infectious location and/or a location which has been visited by one or more infectious persons and the person who visited these locations a certain period thereafter. The spatiotemporal encounter detecting module 504 optionally runes a graphical user interface (GUI) 508 that allows a user to input the identity of one or more infectious persons and to receive a list of persons who encountered the infectious person(s) during a monitored period. Optionally, a spatiotemporal encounter may be defined in different manner. For example, a spatiotemporal encounter may be defined as presence of two or more persons at a certain area for a certain period. The size of the certain area, for example the radius and/or the certain period, for example for how many minutes, may be defined by the user, for example as 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 minutes”, and [0110]: “optionally, the monitoring is performed along a period of between few hours and several days, weeks, months, and/or years. Such embodiments allow ranking a plurality of users according to their compliance with hygiene protocols and/or habits in a certain area of interest, such as an institute, a facility, and/or a company, such as a hospital, a factory, a restaurant, a catering service and/or any other institute, facility, and/or company that enforce hygiene habits”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li, LEE, Steinle, and Sukuma, to incorporate the teachings of Raichman and account for a personal hygiene monitor to the user, using the attached personal hygiene monitor for detecting a plurality of personal hygiene events related to the user, logging the plurality of personal hygiene events to allow configuring a user hygiene profile of the user, and estimating a hygiene level of one or more hygiene habits of the user according to the user hygiene profile (Raichman, [0007]).
Regarding claim 2 LEE further teaches the condition is a predetermined condition as a condition that a risk of infection with an infectious disease due to contact with the control device increases (LEE, [0024]: “In one or more embodiments, when the probability of transfer of pathogens between the user, the client device and the environment exceeds a predetermined risk threshold, a warning to the user is provided”, [0030]: “FIG. 1 illustrates an exemplary system overview 100 showing how mobile device users interact with their device, the system characterizes each the physical properties of each input action, accumulates these actions over time, calculates a contact metric for potential contamination of the device and user's hands, and alerts the user if the risk exceeds tolerable thresholds”, and [0036]: “At block 109 of the warning module 108, the determined risk of contamination is checked against a predetermined threshold. If the threshold is exceeded, the system determined at block 110 whether critical risk threshold has been exceeded”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li, Steinle, Sukuma, and Raichman to incorporate the teachings of LEE and account for model the risks of transferring pathogens from the phone to the HCWs hands and also to notify or warn the worker intelligently when mobile device use behaviors may result in a risky transfer of pathogens between the device and the worker's hands or a work surface (LEE, Abstract and [0004]).
Regarding claim 3 Sukuma further teaches the at least one processor is configured to recommend an input of the control information by the noncontact input method in a case where the control device is shared (Sukuma, [0011]: “the editing unit sets all the control programs included in the second controller data to share with all the control programs included in the first controller data, and stores the sharing setting in the sharing setting table”, [0019]: “The editing unit assigns a mark indicating the sharing setting to the control program set to be shared, and displays the mark on the display unit”, [0031]: “(A) of FIG. 9 and (B) of FIG. 9 are enlarged diagrams of the multi-view explorer window when a control program in a shared state is present”, and [0038]: ‘The sharing setting table 122 stores that the control programs respectively included in the plurality of pieces of controller data are set to be shared”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li, LEE, Steinle, and Raichman to incorporate the teachings of Sukuma and account for indicating sharing and sharing a control device (Sukuma, Abstract).
Regarding claim 4 Li further teaches the device to be controlled is at least one of an image capturing device, a sample examination device, or a physiological examination device, and the condition is a condition regarding an examination order pertaining to the device to be controlled (Li, [0048]: “the tracking device 22 may be, for example, an optical or infrared camera. However, it should be noted that, as will be easily understood by the person skilled in the art, any tracking device, other than the optical or infrared camera, capable of tracking the motion information of the operator may be used”, [0051]: “When the control device 23 receives the motion information of the operator from the tracking device 22, the control device 23 first interprets the motion information of the operator into operation information relating to the movement trajectory of a cursor in the GUI or the confirmation of the selection of an item in the GUI where the cursor locates, and then operates the GUI in accordance with the operation information so as to generate control commands for the one or more medical devices 12”, and [0052]: “The system 11 further comprises an output device 24 connected to the control device 23, for outputting the generated control commands to the one or more medical devices 12”).
Regarding claim 5 Li further teaches the at least one processor is configured to recommend an input of the control information by the noncontact input method in a case where designation is made in the examination order that a sample is under a suspicion of contamination or infection (Li, [0022]-[0023]: “According to an embodiment of the present invention, the system may be activated by particular motion information of the operator or by pressing down an activation button on the system. The activation button on the system may be sterilized in advance so that the patient will not run the risk of infection”).
Regarding claim 6 Steinle further teaches the at least one processor is configured to recommend an input of the control information by the noncontact input method in a case where a round by the device to be controlled is designated in the examination order (Steinle, [0055]: “In other words, the various embodiments of the invention provide feedback to the user of a non-contact gesture control when actual physical contact with a non-sterile or otherwise contaminated screen is imminent”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li, LEE, Sukuma, and Raichman to incorporate the teachings of Steinle and account for medical image display system comprising such a feedback system and to a method of providing sterility-preserving feedback with respect to control or input gestures in a medical system (Steinle, Abstract).
Regarding claim 7 Steinle further teaches the at least one processor is configured to recommend an input of the control information by the noncontact input method in a case where an input by the noncontact input method is designated in the examination order (Steinle, [0010]: “The invention utilizes the realization that providing non-contact operability for devices in a medical environment does not guarantee that non-sterile devices will not be touched by accident, thus rendering the touching person or object non-sterile. A presence detector which generates a threshold and a computer which triggers a sterility-preserving response in accordance with the invention make it possible to detect whether a non-sterile incidence is about to occur or has occurred, and the response generated opens up a range of possibilities for starting or triggering counter measures” and [0055]: “In other words, the various embodiments of the invention provide feedback to the user of a non-contact gesture control when actual physical contact with a non-sterile or otherwise contaminated screen is imminent”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li, LEE, Sukuma, and Raichman to incorporate the teachings of Steinle and account for medical image display system comprising such a feedback system and to a method of providing sterility-preserving feedback with respect to control or input gestures in a medical system (Steinle, Abstract).
Regarding claim 8 Steinle further teaches the at least one processor is configured to recommend an input of the control information by the noncontact input method in a case where an examination method designated in the examination order is a predetermined method as an examination method at a high risk of infection (Steinle, [0010]: “The invention utilizes the realization that providing non-contact operability for devices in a medical environment does not guarantee that non-sterile devices will not be touched by accident, thus rendering the touching person or object non-sterile. A presence detector which generates a threshold and a computer which triggers a sterility-preserving response in accordance with the invention make it possible to detect whether a non-sterile incidence is about to occur or has occurred, and the response generated opens up a range of possibilities for starting or triggering counter measures” and [0055]: “In other words, the various embodiments of the invention provide feedback to the user of a non-contact gesture control when actual physical contact with a non-sterile or otherwise contaminated screen is imminent”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li, LEE, Steinle, and Raichman to incorporate the teachings of Steinle and account for medical image display system comprising such a feedback system and to a method of providing sterility-preserving feedback with respect to control or input gestures in a medical system (Steinle, Abstract).
Regarding claim 9 Steinle further teaches the at least one processor is configured to recommend an input of the control information by the noncontact input method in a case where a type of a sample designated in the examination order is a predetermined type as a type of a sample at a high risk of infection (Steinle, [0010]: “The invention utilizes the realization that providing non-contact operability for devices in a medical environment does not guarantee that non-sterile devices will not be touched by accident, thus rendering the touching person or object non-sterile. A presence detector which generates a threshold and a computer which triggers a sterility-preserving response in accordance with the invention make it possible to detect whether a non-sterile incidence is about to occur or has occurred, and the response generated opens up a range of possibilities for starting or triggering counter measures” and [0055]: “In other words, the various embodiments of the invention provide feedback to the user of a non-contact gesture control when actual physical contact with a non-sterile or otherwise contaminated screen is imminent”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li, LEE, Sukuma, and Raichman to incorporate the teachings of Steinle and account for medical image display system comprising such a feedback system and to a method of providing sterility-preserving feedback with respect to control or input gestures in a medical system (Steinle, Abstract).
Regarding claim 10 Lee further teaches the condition is a condition regarding a state of presence of a person in a predetermined region where the control device is used (LEE, FIG. 2, [0031]: “FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of a warning system when using in high pathogen areas (e.g., quarantine area, bedside with an infectious patient, restroom, or public waiting area) and in infection sensitive areas 209 (e.g., wound clinics, near patients with compromised immune systems, elderly, or infant)”, [0048]: “the system can account for the context and/or environment of device usage. For example, using location sensing, if the device was used/touched in a location with a high level of dangerous pathogens (such as a quarantine area, bedside with infectious patient, restroom, or public waiting area), the system can elevate the danger of each subsequent contact with the phone and adjust its contact metric appropriately”, [0050]-[0051], and [0053]: “In one or more embodiments, when the user enters LocationA, a room with infectious patients, she does not use the device so the system maintains the device-contamination score C_device at 0.05 (the system can also notify the user on their watch reminding them not to touch their device). However, the system assumes the user is interacting with infectious patients. Based on its environment-to-hands estimation function τ_EH, the system raises the hand-contamination score C_hands to 0.30 after the first minute in this room, and by 0.10 every additional 10 minutes thereafter (to a maximum of 1.0). For example, after spending 41 minutes with patients in this area, the system estimates C_hands to be 0.70”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li, Steinle, Sukuma, and Raichman to incorporate the teachings of LEE and account for model the risks of transferring pathogens from the phone to the HCWs hands and also to notify or warn the worker intelligently when mobile device use behaviors may result in a risky transfer of pathogens between the device and the worker's hands or a work surface (LEE, Abstract and [0004]).
Regarding claim 11 LEE further teaches the at least one processor is configured to recommend an input of the control information by the noncontact input method in a case where at least one of the number of people who are present in the region or the total number of hours for which a person is present in the region is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value (LEE, FIG. 2, [0031]: “FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of a warning system when using in high pathogen areas (e.g., quarantine area, bedside with an infectious patient, restroom, or public waiting area) and in infection sensitive areas 209 (e.g., wound clinics, near patients with compromised immune systems, elderly, or infant)”, [0048]: “the system can account for the context and/or environment of device usage. For example, using location sensing, if the device was used/touched in a location with a high level of dangerous pathogens (such as a quarantine area, bedside with infectious patient, restroom, or public waiting area), the system can elevate the danger of each subsequent contact with the phone and adjust its contact metric appropriately”, [0050]-[0051], and [0053]: “In one or more embodiments, when the user enters LocationA, a room with infectious patients, she does not use the device so the system maintains the device-contamination score C_device at 0.05 (the system can also notify the user on their watch reminding them not to touch their device). However, the system assumes the user is interacting with infectious patients. Based on its environment-to-hands estimation function τ_EH, the system raises the hand-contamination score C_hands to 0.30 after the first minute in this room, and by 0.10 every additional 10 minutes thereafter (to a maximum of 1.0). For example, after spending 41 minutes with patients in this area, the system estimates C_hands to be 0.70”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li, Steinle, Sukuma, and Raichman to incorporate the teachings of LEE and account for model the risks of transferring pathogens from the phone to the HCWs hands and also to notify or warn the worker intelligently when mobile device use behaviors may result in a risky transfer of pathogens between the device and the worker's hands or a work surface (LEE, Abstract and [0004]).
Regarding claim 12 LEE further teaches the at least one processor is configured to recommend an input of the control information by the noncontact input method in a case where a contaminated or infected person is present in the region (LEE, FIG. 2, [0031]: “FIG. 2 illustrates an exemplary embodiment of a warning system when using in high pathogen areas (e.g., quarantine area, bedside with an infectious patient, restroom, or public waiting area) and in infection sensitive areas 209 (e.g., wound clinics, near patients with compromised immune systems, elderly, or infant)”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li, Steinle, Sukuma, and Raichman to incorporate the teachings of LEE and account for model the risks of transferring pathogens from the phone to the HCWs hands and also to notify or warn the worker intelligently when mobile device use behaviors may result in a risky transfer of pathogens between the device and the worker's hands or a work surface (LEE, Abstract and [0004]).
Regarding claim 13 Raichman further teaches the at least one processor is configured to recommend an input of the control information by the noncontact input method in a case where a present point of time corresponds to a predetermined period (Raichman, [0071]: “According to some embodiments of the present invention, there are provided a hygiene monitoring name tag that includes sensors and/or location indicators of monitoring hygiene of a person and methods of using thereof. These embodiments allows using a hygiene monitoring name tag to monitor current hygiene level and/or to generate a hygiene habits score by detecting personal hygiene events and the presence of the monitored wearer in a potential contamination venue and/or the participation thereof in a potential contamination event”, [0090]: “Additionally or alternatively, the interchange detecting unit 302 comprises a presence sensor that detects whenever a new patient enters the medical treatment venue, for example an optical sensor and/or a proximity sensor, for example as defined above”, [0101]: “The detection is performed by going over the database 503 to identify persons which met the one or more infectious persons during a specified period and/or been at an infectious location and/or a location which has been visited by one or more infectious persons and the person who visited these locations a certain period thereafter. The spatiotemporal encounter detecting module 504 optionally runes a graphical user interface (GUI) 508 that allows a user to input the identity of one or more infectious persons and to receive a list of persons who encountered the infectious person(s) during a monitored period. Optionally, a spatiotemporal encounter may be defined in different manner. For example, a spatiotemporal encounter may be defined as presence of two or more persons at a certain area for a certain period. The size of the certain area, for example the radius and/or the certain period, for example for how many minutes, may be defined by the user, for example as 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 minutes”, and [0110]: “optionally, the monitoring is performed along a period of between few hours and several days, weeks, months, and/or years. Such embodiments allow ranking a plurality of users according to their compliance with hygiene protocols and/or habits in a certain area of interest, such as an institute, a facility, and/or a company, such as a hospital, a factory, a restaurant, a catering service and/or any other institute, facility, and/or company that enforce hygiene habits”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li, LEE, Steinle, and Sukuma to incorporate the teachings of Raichman and account for a personal hygiene monitor to the user, using the attached personal hygiene monitor for detecting a plurality of personal hygiene events related to the user, logging the plurality of personal hygiene events to allow configuring a user hygiene profile of the user, and estimating a hygiene level of one or more hygiene habits of the user according to the user hygiene profile (Raichman, [0007]).
Regarding claim 15 LEE further teaches the at least one processor is configured to determine whether or not the condition is satisfied (LEE, [0024]: “In one or more embodiments, when the probability of transfer of pathogens between the user, the client device and the environment exceeds a predetermined risk threshold, a warning to the user is provided”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Li, Steinle, Sukuma, and Raichman to incorporate the teachings of LEE and account for model the risks of transferring pathogens from the phone to the HCWs hands and also to notify or warn the worker intelligently when mobile device use behaviors may result in a risky transfer of pathogens between the device and the worker's hands or a work surface (LEE, Abstract and [0004]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 have been fully considered. Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection, Applicant’s arguments do not recite an abstract idea. Applicant argues the claims provides a technological environment that uses a specific means to achieve the improvement. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations of acquire, determining, inputting, display, recommending warning, and executed are all instructions a person is capable of performing (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states “ the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping”). It is also unclear what the technological improvement is. However, the technological environments are recited at a high level such that they are merely being applied to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f) states “the recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015)” and “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejection, Examiner finds the arguments persuasive and a new 2nd Non-Final has been issued. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the prior art rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHAEL SOJIN STONE whose telephone number is (571)272-8798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 AM - 7 PM (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, Peter Choi can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/R.S.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
