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
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claims 1-17 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 1-17 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 1-15 are directed toward an information processing device (i.e., machine), claim 15 is directed toward an information processing method (i.e. a process) and claim 17 is directed toward a non-transitory computer-readable storage 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 but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Claim 1 recites: “An information processing device comprising at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to recommend, as a method of inputting control information for controlling a device to be controlled to a control device that controls the device to be controlled, a noncontact input method of inputting the control information in a manner noncontact with the control device in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied”.
The limitations of recommend, as a method of inputting control information, a noncontact input method of inputting the control information in a manner noncontact… in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite 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 recommend and inputting, which is properly interpreted as a “personal behavior”), 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 16 and 17 are identical as the abstract idea of claim 1. 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 2-15 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 1-17 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 “information processing device”, “processor”, “device”, “control device”, “image capturing device”, “sample examination device”, “physiological examination device”, and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, 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, “at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured”, “for controlling a device to be controlled to a control device that controls the device to be controlled”, and “with the control device in a case”, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of technology/the environment of computers, see MPEP 2106.05(h) and MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, dependent claims 2-15 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., “information processing device”, “processor”, “device”, “control device”, “image capturing device”, “sample examination device”, “physiological examination device”, and “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”) 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 2-15 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.
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 1-17 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-4, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shelton et al. (US 20220104911 A1), hereinafter Shelton.
Regarding claim 1 Shelton teaches an information processing device comprising at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to recommend, as a method of inputting control information for controlling a device to be controlled to a control device that controls the device to be controlled (Shelton, FIG. 21-22, [0037], [0038], [0096], [0107], and [0202]), a noncontact input method of inputting the control information in a manner noncontact with the control device in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied (Shelton, [0013], [0096], [0107], [0109], and [0127]).
Regarding claim 3 Shelton 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 (Shelton, [0013], [0096], [0107], [0109], and [0127]).
Regarding claim 4 Shelton 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 (Shelton, [0098], [0116], and [0160]).
Regarding claim 14 Shelton teaches the at least one processor is configured to 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 (Shelton, [0012]-[0013], [0096], [0107], [0109], [0127], [0254], and [0281]).
Regarding claim 15 Shelton teaches the at least one processor is configured to determine whether or not the condition is satisfied (Shelton, [0098]).
Regarding claim 16 Shelton teaches an information processing method by which a computer executes a process comprising: recommending, as a method of inputting control information for controlling a device to be controlled to a control device that controls the device to be controlled (Shelton, FIG. 21-22, [0037], [0038], [0096], [0107], and [0202]), a noncontact input method of inputting the control information in a manner noncontact with the control device in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied (Shelton, [0013], [0096], [0107], [0109], and [0127]).
Regarding claim 17 Shelton teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program that causes a computer to execute a process comprising: recommending, as a method of inputting control information for controlling a device to be controlled to a control device that controls the device to be controlled (Shelton, FIG. 21-22, [0037], [0038], [0096], [0107], and [0202]), a noncontact input method of inputting the control information in a manner noncontact with the control device in a case where a predetermined condition is satisfied (Shelton, [0013], [0096], [0107], [0109], and [0127]).
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) 2 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shelton et al. (US 20220104911 A1), hereinafter Shelton, in view of Tiron et al. (US 20230190140 A1), hereinafter Tiron.
Regarding claim 2 Shelton does not teach 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. However, Tiron 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 (Tiron, [0039], [0087], [0137], and [0139]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shelton to incorporate the teachings of Tiron and account for detection, monitoring, diagnosis, treatment, prevention and amelioration of diseases and conditions which include disordered breathing such as coughing. The present technology also relates to medical devices or apparatus, and their use. In particular, the present technology relates to screening and/or monitoring devices or apparatus, and their use, such as a non-contact screening and/or monitoring device (Tiron, Abstract and [0002]).
Regarding claim 5 Shelton does not teach 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. However, Tiron 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 (Shelton, [0013], [0096], [0107], [0109], and [0127]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shelton to incorporate the teachings of Tiron and account for detection, monitoring, diagnosis, treatment, prevention and amelioration of diseases and conditions which include disordered breathing such as coughing. The present technology also relates to medical devices or apparatus, and their use. In particular, the present technology relates to screening and/or monitoring devices or apparatus, and their use, such as a non-contact screening and/or monitoring device (Tiron, Abstract and [0002]).
Regarding claim 6 Shelton does not teach 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. However, Tiron 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 (Tiron, [0875]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shelton to incorporate the teachings of Tiron and account for detection, monitoring, diagnosis, treatment, prevention and amelioration of diseases and conditions which include disordered breathing such as coughing. The present technology also relates to medical devices or apparatus, and their use. In particular, the present technology relates to screening and/or monitoring devices or apparatus, and their use, such as a non-contact screening and/or monitoring device (Tiron, Abstract and [0002]).
Regarding claim 7 Shelton does not teach 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. However, Tiron 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 (Tiron, [0027], [0030], [0035], [0038], and [0224]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shelton to incorporate the teachings of Tiron and account for detection, monitoring, diagnosis, treatment, prevention and amelioration of diseases and conditions which include disordered breathing such as coughing. The present technology also relates to medical devices or apparatus, and their use. In particular, the present technology relates to screening and/or monitoring devices or apparatus, and their use, such as a non-contact screening and/or monitoring device (Tiron, Abstract and [0002]).
Regarding claim 8 Shelton does not teach 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. However, Tiron 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 (Tiron, [0061], [0315], [0491], and [0875]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shelton to incorporate the teachings of Tiron and account for detection, monitoring, diagnosis, treatment, prevention and amelioration of diseases and conditions which include disordered breathing such as coughing. The present technology also relates to medical devices or apparatus, and their use. In particular, the present technology relates to screening and/or monitoring devices or apparatus, and their use, such as a non-contact screening and/or monitoring device (Tiron, Abstract and [0002]).
Regarding claim 9 Shelton does not teach 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. However, Tiron 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 (Tiron, [0039] and [0139]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shelton to incorporate the teachings of Tiron and account for detection, monitoring, diagnosis, treatment, prevention and amelioration of diseases and conditions which include disordered breathing such as coughing. The present technology also relates to medical devices or apparatus, and their use. In particular, the present technology relates to screening and/or monitoring devices or apparatus, and their use, such as a non-contact screening and/or monitoring device (Tiron, Abstract and [0002]).
Regarding claim 10 Shelton does not teach the condition is a condition regarding a state of presence of a person in a predetermined region where the control device is used. However, Tiron teaches the condition is a condition regarding a state of presence of a person in a predetermined region where the control device is used (Tiron, [0049]-[0050], [0052]-[0053], and [0137]-[0139]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shelton to incorporate the teachings of Tiron and account for detection, monitoring, diagnosis, treatment, prevention and amelioration of diseases and conditions which include disordered breathing such as coughing. The present technology also relates to medical devices or apparatus, and their use. In particular, the present technology relates to screening and/or monitoring devices or apparatus, and their use, such as a non-contact screening and/or monitoring device (Tiron, Abstract and [0002]).
Regarding claim 11 Shelton does not teach 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. However, Tiron 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 (Tiron, [0082], [0515], and [0574]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shelton to incorporate the teachings of Tiron and account for detection, monitoring, diagnosis, treatment, prevention and amelioration of diseases and conditions which include disordered breathing such as coughing. The present technology also relates to medical devices or apparatus, and their use. In particular, the present technology relates to screening and/or monitoring devices or apparatus, and their use, such as a non-contact screening and/or monitoring device (Tiron, Abstract and [0002]).
Regarding claim 12 Shelton does not teach 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. However, Tiron 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 (Tiron, [0139]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shelton to incorporate the teachings of Tiron and account for detection, monitoring, diagnosis, treatment, prevention and amelioration of diseases and conditions which include disordered breathing such as coughing. The present technology also relates to medical devices or apparatus, and their use. In particular, the present technology relates to screening and/or monitoring devices or apparatus, and their use, such as a non-contact screening and/or monitoring device (Tiron, Abstract and [0002]).
Regarding claim 13 Shelton does not teach 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. However, Tiron 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 (Tiron, [0286], [0430], and [0515]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Shelton to incorporate the teachings of Tiron and account for detection, monitoring, diagnosis, treatment, prevention and amelioration of diseases and conditions which include disordered breathing such as coughing. The present technology also relates to medical devices or apparatus, and their use. In particular, the present technology relates to screening and/or monitoring devices or apparatus, and their use, such as a non-contact screening and/or monitoring device (Tiron, Abstract and [0002]).
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 9 AM - 5 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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 571-272-4530. 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
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights