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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-5, 7-14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rodgers (US 2022/0022821) in view of Janes et al. (US 2024/0395419).
Regarding claims 1 and 12 , Rodgers discloses a method and an apparatus for contact verification, the method comprising:
receiving and storing spatiotemporal signal information capable of specifying time and space from a plurality of user equipments (UEs) by an apparatus of contact verification (paragraphs [0007], [0039], [0041], [0045]; e.g., recording space-time coordinate information of each mobile device that is traceable by the contact tracing system in association with the associated tokens);
extracting spatiotemporal signal information of a specific user among the stored spatiotemporal signal information by the apparatus of contact verification (paragraphs [0007], [0039], [0043]; e.g., location 120 and/or master contact tracing domain 130 may analyze all of its token-coordinate information to determine all the tokens that have been subject to the exposure event).
Rodgers fails to specifically disclose configuring the extracted spatiotemporal signal information of the specific user as reference spatiotemporal signal information, and comparing similarity between the reference spatiotemporal signal information and the other stored spatiotemporal signal information by the apparatus of contact verification; and determining whether or not there is contact between the specific user and another user based on the similarity by the apparatus of contact verification.
However, Janes discloses configuring the extracted spatiotemporal signal information of the specific user as reference spatiotemporal signal information, and comparing similarity between the reference spatiotemporal signal information and the other stored spatiotemporal signal information by the apparatus of contact verification (paragraphs [0010], [0015], [0259]; e.g., once a person is identified as having a confirmed or probable case of COVID-19, the system can compare the location tracking data (e.g., paths of travel, times and locations of visits, etc.) with the location tracking data of other users to find overlap in space and time); and
determining whether or not there is contact between the specific user and another user based on the similarity by the apparatus of contact verification (paragraphs [0149], [0235], [0287], [0461]; e.g., identifying contacts of the individuals with one or more people who have a confirmed or probable case of a disease).
Therefore, taking the teachings of Rodgers in combination of Janes as a whole, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention by applicant to configuring the extracted spatiotemporal signal information of the specific user as reference spatiotemporal signal information, and comparing similarity between the reference spatiotemporal signal information and the other stored spatiotemporal signal information by the apparatus of contact verification; and determining whether or not there is contact between the specific user and another user based on the similarity by the apparatus of contact verification for advantages of seeking to identify people who have been in close contact with others who are infected with a disease, to identify people who have been exposed to the disease and may risk infecting others (Janes: paragraph [0003]).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Rodgers in combination with Janes discloses the method and the apparatus of claims 1 and 12, wherein the spatiotemporal signal information is temporal and spatial fingerprints (TSF) that is continuously measured over a certain period of time from at least one sensor in the user equipment (UE), and indicates space state information over time, and the TSF includes a signal type of the spatiotemporal signal information measured through the user equipment (UE), signal strength according to the signal type, and a timestamp indicating information about a time at which the signal type and the signal strength were measured (Janes: paragraphs [0388], [0420]).
Regarding claim 3, Rodgers in combination with Janes discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the TSF further includes a state value of an environment indicating changes in the environment, and the state value of the environment is at least one or a combination of a characteristic value of atmospheric pressure according to changes in atmospheric pressure in a space where the user stayed, a characteristic value of sound according to changes in sound in the space, and a characteristic value of temperature according to temperature changes in the space (Janes: paragraphs [0073], [0330]; e.g., detect general behavior changes and physiological changes that may indicate other symptoms).
Regarding claim 4, Rodgers in combination with Janes discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the receiving and storing spatiotemporal signal information is matching a user equipment (UE) identifier with the spatiotemporal signal information and storing it (Janes: paragraphs [0603]; e.g., When the user's movement pattern (e.g., route, location, etc.) matches or is similar to the pattern that other users took to reach the location, the system can determine).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Rodgers in combination with Janes discloses the method and the apparatus of claims 1 and 12, wherein the extracting spatiotemporal signal information of a specific user is selecting spatiotemporal signal information corresponding to the spatiotemporal signal information of the specific user from a plurality of stored spatiotemporal signal information when the specific user is determined to be infected (Rodgers: paragraphs [0054]-[0055]) and (Janes: paragraphs [0634], [0659]).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Rodgers in combination with Janes discloses the method and the apparatus of claims 1 and 12, wherein the determining whether or not there is contact is verifying a user equipment (UE) identifier that measured spatiotemporal signal information similar to the reference spatiotemporal signal information of the specific user, and classifying the user as a contact or non-contact (Janes: paragraphs [0659], [0676]).
Regarding claim 8, Rodgers in combination with Janes discloses the method of claim 1, wherein, when the spatiotemporal signal information is a wireless communication signal, the receiving and storing spatiotemporal signal information is including and storing a type of carrier and communication standard of the wireless communication signal, and the comparing similarity between the spatiotemporal signal information is comparing similarity between wireless communication signals of each of the reference spatiotemporal signal information and the other stored spatiotemporal signal information targeting spatiotemporal signal information matching at least one or a combination of the type of carrier and the communications standard (Rodgers: paragraphs [0039]) and (Janes: paragraphs [0681], [0685]).
Regarding claim 9, Rodgers in combination with Janes discloses the method of claim 1, wherein when the spatiotemporal signal information is WiFi, the receiving and storing spatiotemporal signal information is including and storing an access point (AP) identifier, frequency, and channel of the WiFi, and the comparing similarity between the spatiotemporal signal information is comparing similarity between WiFi signals of each of the reference spatiotemporal signal information and the other stored spatiotemporal signal information targeting spatiotemporal signal information matching at least one or a combination of the access point (AP) identifier, frequency, and channel of the WiFi (Rodgers: paragraphs [0039]) and (Janes: paragraphs [0009], [0061], [0414]).
Regarding claim 10, Rodgers in combination with Janes discloses the method of claim 1, wherein when the spatiotemporal signal information is Bluetooth, the receiving and storing spatiotemporal signal information is including and storing a Bluetooth identifier, and the comparing similarity between the spatiotemporal signal information is comparing similarity between Bluetooth signals of each of the reference spatiotemporal signal information and the other stored spatiotemporal signal information targeting spatiotemporal signal information matching the Bluetooth identifier (Rodgers: paragraphs [0039]) and (Janes: paragraphs [0009], [0061], [0414]).
Regarding claim 17, Rodgers in combination with Janes discloses the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the processor transmits an infectious disease testing recommendation message to infected people depending on whether or not there is the determined contact (Janes: paragraphs [0019], [0032]).
Claim 11 is drawn to one or more non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions, wherein the computer-readable medium comprising code means for generating steps of claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale applied to claim 1 applies. In addition, Rodgers in combination with Janes inherently discloses a computer program product, i.e., given that Rodgers/Janes discloses a process, the process would be implemented by a processor that requires a computer program product, e.g., a RAM, to function.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY X PHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7115. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8:30-5:00.
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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached at 571-270-5144. 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.
/TIMOTHY X PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648