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 10/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 16, and 20 and claims 2-15, 17-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) steps of detecting, based on at least one image of the sequence of images of the hygiene sensitive area, one or more persons in the hygiene sensitive area, and defining a source region that surrounds each one of the one or more persons, assigning a hygiene state to the source region, and detecting, based on at least one image of the sequence of images of the hygiene sensitive area, whether there has been a collision event between the target region and the source region which may be performed practically in the human mind as a mental process by mentally observing at least one image of a sequence of images of a hygiene sensitive area, including a target region, making a mental evaluation to identify one or more persons in the hygiene sensitive area, mentally determining a source region that surrounds each one of the one or more persons and a target region, making a mental determination of a hygiene state to the source region, and mentally observing and evaluating the at least one image of the sequence of images of the hygiene sensitive area to determine whether there has been a collision event between the target region and the source region. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of receiving a sequence of images of the hygiene sensitive area and in response to detecting that there has been a collision event between the target region and the source region, triggering a presentation of an indicator indicative of the hygiene state of the source region amounts to mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements of a memory or nontransitory storage medium and a processor or processing circuit (claims 16 and 20) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements of a memory or nontransitory storage medium and a processor or processing circuit (claims 16 and 20) are at best mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of receiving a sequence of images of the hygiene sensitive area and in response to detecting that there has been a collision event between the target region and the source region, triggering a presentation of an indicator indicative of the hygiene state of the source region are recited at a high level of generality that amounts to obtaining and receiving data over a network and are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1, 16, and 20 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-15, 17-19, and 21-23 also do not include elements that amount to significantly more than just the abstract idea or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 2-15, 17-19, and 21-23 are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 16, 17, 19-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ranasinghe et al. (US 2021/0256835).
With regards to claim 1, Ranasinghe et al. discloses a method for automated tracking and detection of hygiene state in a hygiene sensitive area (Para. 0003 lines 1-4, "hospital" "hygiene"), comprising:
receiving a sequence of images of the hygiene sensitive area, the hygiene sensitive area including a target region (Para. 0176 lines 1-14, 0187 lines 1-6, 0215 lines 1-5, 0218 lines 1-11, "patient zone");
detecting, based on at least one image of the sequence of images of the hygiene sensitive area, one or more persons in the hygiene sensitive area, and defining a source region that surrounds each one of the one or more persons (Para. 0215 lines 13-17, 0218 lines 1-11, 0222 lines 1-7, "detected person");
assigning a hygiene state to the source region based on the sequence of images of the hygiene sensitive area (Para. 0188 lines 1-5, 0189 lines 1-9, 0190 lines 1-5, 0194 lines 11-26, 0198 lines 5-26, 0230 lines 1-8, 0231 lines 1-3, 0235 lines 3-11, "contaminated" "clean");
detecting, based on at least one image of the sequence of images of the hygiene sensitive area, whether there has been a collision event between the target region and the source region (Para. 0187 lines 1-9, 0188 lines 1-5, 0189 lines 1-9, 0194 lines 11-26, 0198 lines 5-26, 0231 lines 6-10, 0232 lines 1-3, "within a patient zone"); and
in response to detecting that there has been a collision event between the target region and the source region, triggering a presentation of an indicator indicative of the hygiene state of the source region (Para. 0218 lines 13-19, 0219 lines 1-9, 0232 lines 1-5, "alert").
With regards to claim 2, Ranasinghe et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein assigning the hygiene state to the source region includes selecting one hygiene state of a clean state, a contaminated state, or an in process state, and assigning the selected hygiene state to the source region (Para. 0188 lines 1-5, 0189 lines 1-9, 0190 lines 1-5, 0194 lines 11-26, 0198 lines 5-26, 0230 lines 1-8, 0231 lines 1-3, 0235 lines 3-11, "contaminated" "clean"); wherein in response to the hygiene state assigned to the source region being the contaminated state, the indicator indicates a hygiene violation (Para. 0188 lines 1-5, 0189 lines 1-9, 0194 lines 11-26, 0198 lines 5-12, 0235 lines 3-11, "contaminated"); and wherein in response to the hygiene state assigned to the source region being the clean state, the indicator indicates a hygiene non-violation (Para. 0190 lines 1-5, 0198 lines 13-26, 0230 lines 1-8, 0231 lines 1-3, 0235 lines 3-11, "clean").
With regards to claim 3, Ranasinghe et al. discloses the method of claim 2, wherein determining the hygiene state of the source region includes: assigning the contaminated state to the source region upon detecting the one or more persons entering the hygiene sensitive area or the one or more persons leaving the hygiene sensitive area (Para. 0188 lines 1-5, 0189 lines 1-9, 0194 lines 11-26, 0198 lines 5-12, 0235 lines 3-11, "patient zone" "contaminated").
With regards to claim 4, Ranasinghe et al. discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the hygiene sensitive area also includes a hygiene station region (Para. 0190 lines 1-5, 0198 lines 13-26, 0218 lines 1-3, "handwashing area"); and wherein assigning the hygiene state to the source region includes: detecting that there has been a collision event between the source region and the hygiene station region over at least a subset of the sequence of images (Para. 0190 lines 1-5, 0198 lines 13-26, 0218 lines 1-3, "handwashing area"), the subset of the sequence of images representing a minimum time for which the one or more persons is performing a hygiene act at the hygiene station region (Para. 0230 lines 1-19, 0235 lines 1-15, 0237 lines 1-10, "image frames in sequence"); and in response to detecting that there has been a collision event between the source region and the hygiene station region over at least the subset of the sequence of images, assigning the clean state to the source region (Para. 0190 lines 1-5, 0198 lines 13-26, 0230 lines 1-8, 0231 lines 1-3, 0235 lines 3-11, 0237 lines 1-10 and 12-16, "clean").
With regards to claim 5, Ranasinghe et al. discloses the method of claim 2, wherein assigning the hygiene state to the source region includes: receiving a signal indicating that the one or more persons has performed a hygiene act at a hygiene station (Para. 0198 lines 13-26, 0230 lines 1-8, 0231 lines 1-3, 0235 lines 3-11, 0237 lines 1-10 and 12-16, "washed"); and in response to receiving the signal, assigning the clean state to the source region (Para. 0198 lines 13-26, 0230 lines 1-8, 0231 lines 1-3, 0235 lines 3-11, 0237 lines 1-10 and 12-16, "clean status").
With regards to claim 6, Ranasinghe et al. discloses the method of claim 2, wherein assigning the hygiene state to the source region includes: detecting a second person in the hygiene sensitive area, the second person being surrounded by a second source region, the second source region having been assigned a hygiene state; detecting a collision event between the source region and the second source region; and assigning the hygiene state of the source region based on the hygiene state assigned to the second source region (Para. 0183 lines 8-11, 0187 lines 4-6, 0188 lines 1-10, "patient" "touching" "contaminated").
With regards to claim 9, Ranasinghe et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the target region surrounds a patient bed area (Para. 0176 lines 1-14, 0187 lines 1-6, 0215 lines 1-5, 0218 lines 1-11, "patient zone" "hospital bed"); and wherein detecting whether there has been a collision event between the target region and the source region includes: performing a segmentation operation on the patient bed area to produce, as the target region, a polygonal region (Para. 0194 lines 18-19, Fig. 2B element 275, "patient zone").
With regards to claim 16, Ranasinghe et al. discloses a computer program product comprising a nontransitory storage medium, the computer program product including code that, when executed by processing circuitry, causes the processing circuitry to perform a method for automated tracking and detection of hygiene state in a hygiene sensitive area (Para. 0003 lines 1-4, 0303 lines 1-16, "non-transitory computer-readable storage medium" "processor"), the method comprising:
receiving a sequence of images of the hygiene sensitive area, the hygiene sensitive area including a target region (Para. 0176 lines 1-14, 0187 lines 1-6, 0215 lines 1-5, 0218 lines 1-11, "patient zone");
detecting, based on at least one image of the sequence of images of the hygiene sensitive area, one or more persons in the hygiene sensitive area, and defining a source region that surrounds the one or more persons (Para. 0215 lines 13-17, 0218 lines 1-11, 0222 lines 1-7, "detected person");
assigning a hygiene state to the source region based on the sequence of images of the hygiene sensitive area (Para. 0188 lines 1-5, 0189 lines 1-9, 0190 lines 1-5, 0194 lines 11-26, 0198 lines 5-26, 0230 lines 1-8, 0231 lines 1-3, 0235 lines 3-11, "contaminated" "clean");
detecting, based on at least one image of the sequence of images of the hygiene sensitive area, whether there has been a collision event between the target region and the source region (Para. 0187 lines 1-9, 0188 lines 1-5, 0189 lines 1-9, 0194 lines 11-26, 0198 lines 5-26, 0231 lines 6-10, 0232 lines 1-3, "within a patient zone"); and
in response to detecting that there has been a collision event between the target region and the source region, triggering a presentation of an indicator indicative of the hygiene state of the source region (Para. 0218 lines 13-19, 0219 lines 1-9, 0232 lines 1-5, "alert").
With regards to claim 17, Ranasinghe et al. discloses the computer program product of claim 16, wherein assigning the hygiene state to the source region includes selecting one hygiene state of a clean state, a contaminated state, or an in process state, and assigning the selected hygiene state to the source region (Para. 0188 lines 1-5, 0189 lines 1-9, 0190 lines 1-5, 0194 lines 11-26, 0198 lines 5-26, 0230 lines 1-8, 0231 lines 1-3, 0235 lines 3-11, "contaminated" "clean"); wherein in response to the hygiene state assigned to the source region being the contaminated state, the indicator indicates a hygiene violation (Para. 0188 lines 1-5, 0189 lines 1-9, 0194 lines 11-26, 0198 lines 5-12, 0235 lines 3-11, "contaminated"); and wherein in response to the hygiene state assigned to the source region being the clean state, the indicator indicates a hygiene non-violation (Para. 0190 lines 1-5, 0198 lines 13-26, 0230 lines 1-8, 0231 lines 1-3, 0235 lines 3-11, "clean").
With regards to claim 19, Ranasinghe et al. discloses the computer program product of claim 16, wherein the target region surrounds a patient bed area (Para. 0176 lines 1-14, 0187 lines 1-6, 0215 lines 1-5, 0218 lines 1-11, "patient zone" "hospital bed"); and wherein detecting whether there has been a collision event between the target region and the source region includes: performing a segmentation operation on the patient bed area to produce, as the target region, a polygonal region (Para. 0194 lines 18-19, Fig. 2B element 275, "patient zone").
With regards to claim 20, Ranasinghe et al. discloses an apparatus for automated tracking and detection of hygiene state in a hygiene sensitive area, comprising:
memory (Para. 0303 lines 1-16, "memory devices"); and
processing circuitry coupled to the memory (Para. 0302 lines 1-9, 0303 lines 1-16, "processor" "memory devices"), the processing circuitry being configured to:
receive a sequence of images of the hygiene sensitive area, the hygiene sensitive area including a target region (Para. 0176 lines 1-14, 0187 lines 1-6, 0215 lines 1-5, 0218 lines 1-11, "patient zone");
detect, based on at least one image of the sequence of images of the hygiene sensitive area, one or more persons in the hygiene sensitive area, and defining a source region that surrounds the one or more persons (Para. 0215 lines 13-17, 0218 lines 1-11, 0222 lines 1-7, "detected person");
assign a hygiene state to the source region based on the sequence of images of the hygiene sensitive area (Para. 0188 lines 1-5, 0189 lines 1-9, 0190 lines 1-5, 0194 lines 11-26, 0198 lines 5-26, 0230 lines 1-8, 0231 lines 1-3, 0235 lines 3-11, "contaminated" "clean");
detect, based on at least one image of the sequence of images of the hygiene sensitive area, whether there has been a collision event between the target region and the source region (Para. 0187 lines 1-9, 0188 lines 1-5, 0189 lines 1-9, 0194 lines 11-26, 0198 lines 5-26, 0231 lines 6-10, 0232 lines 1-3, "within a patient zone"); and
in response to detecting that there has been a collision event between the target region and the source region, trigger a presentation of an indicator indicative of the hygiene state of the source region (Para. 0218 lines 13-19, 0219 lines 1-9, 0232 lines 1-5, "alert").
With regards to claim 21, Ranasinghe et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 20, wherein assigning the hygiene state to the source region includes selecting one hygiene state of a clean state, a contaminated state, or an in process state, and assigning the selected hygiene state to the source region (Para. 0188 lines 1-5, 0189 lines 1-9, 0190 lines 1-5, 0194 lines 11-26, 0198 lines 5-26, 0230 lines 1-8, 0231 lines 1-3, 0235 lines 3-11, "contaminated" "clean"); wherein in response to the hygiene state assigned to the source region being the contaminated state, the indicator indicates a hygiene violation (Para. 0188 lines 1-5, 0189 lines 1-9, 0194 lines 11-26, 0198 lines 5-12, 0235 lines 3-11, "contaminated"); and wherein in response to the hygiene state assigned to the source region being the clean state, the indicator indicates a hygiene non-violation (Para. 0190 lines 1-5, 0198 lines 13-26, 0230 lines 1-8, 0231 lines 1-3, 0235 lines 3-11, "clean").
With regards to claim 23, Ranasinghe et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the target region surrounds a patient bed area (Para. 0176 lines 1-14, 0187 lines 1-6, 0215 lines 1-5, 0218 lines 1-11, "patient zone" "hospital bed"); and wherein the processing circuitry configured to detect whether there has been a collision event between the target region and the source region is further configured to: perform a segmentation operation on the patient bed area to produce, as the target region, a polygonal region (Para. 0194 lines 18-19, Fig. 2B element 275, "patient zone").
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) 7, 8, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranasinghe et al. (US 2021/0256835) in view of Wang et al. (A Safety Warning Algorithm Based on Axis Aligned Bounding Box Method to Prevent Onsite Accidents of Mobile Construction Machineries).
With regards to claim 7, Ranasinghe et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the target region surrounds a patient bed area and includes a bounding box around the patient bed area (Para. 0194 lines 18-19, Fig. 2B element 275, "patient zone").
Ranasinghe et al. does not explicitly teach an axis-aligned bounding box (AABB) around the patient bed area.
However, Wang et al. discloses the concept of using an axis-aligned bounding box (AABB) as a bounding box in order to efficiently determine a bounding box (3.2.1. The Bounding Box Methods: Para. 1 lines 1-7 and 9-10, "AABB" "easiest to develop").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of using an axis-aligned bounding box (AABB) around the patient bed area as the bounding box as taught by Wang et al. into the method of Ranasinghe et al. The motivation for this would be to efficiently determine a bounding box around the patient bed area.
With regards to claim 8, the combination of Ranasinghe et al. and Wang et al. discloses the method of claim 7, wherein detecting whether there has been a collision event between the target region and the source region includes: determining whether the source region intersects the AABB (Ranasinghe et al.: Para. 0187 lines 1-3, 0188 lines 1-2, 0194 lines 11-26, 0232 lines 1-3, "within a patient zone", see also claim 7 rejection above on determining an AABB as the patient zone).
With regards to claim 18, Ranasinghe et al. discloses the computer program product of claim 16, wherein the target region surrounds a patient bed area and includes a bounding box around the patient bed area (Para. 0194 lines 18-19, Fig. 2B element 275, "patient zone").
Ranasinghe et al. does not explicitly teach an axis-aligned bounding box (AABB) around the patient bed area.
However, Wang et al. discloses the concept of using an axis-aligned bounding box (AABB) as a bounding box in order to efficiently determine a bounding box (3.2.1. The Bounding Box Methods: Para. 1 lines 1-7 and 9-10, "AABB" "easiest to develop").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of using an axis-aligned bounding box (AABB) around the patient bed area as the bounding box as taught by Wang et al. into the computer program product of Ranasinghe et al. The motivation for this would be to efficiently determine a bounding box around the patient bed area.
With regards to claim 22, Ranasinghe et al. discloses the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the target region surrounds a patient bed area and includes a bounding box around the patient bed area (Para. 0194 lines 18-19, Fig. 2B element 275, "patient zone").
Ranasinghe et al. does not explicitly teach an axis-aligned bounding box (AABB) around the patient bed area.
However, Wang et al. discloses the concept of using an axis-aligned bounding box (AABB) as a bounding box in order to efficiently determine a bounding box (3.2.1. The Bounding Box Methods: Para. 1 lines 1-7 and 9-10, "AABB" "easiest to develop").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of using an axis-aligned bounding box (AABB) around the patient bed area as the bounding box as taught by Wang et al. into the apparatus of Ranasinghe et al. The motivation for this would be to efficiently determine a bounding box around the patient bed area.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranasinghe et al. (US 2021/0256835) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 111191511, see translated version).
With regards to claim 10, Ranasinghe et al. discloses the method of claim 9, wherein detecting whether there has been a collision event between the target region and the source region further includes: determining one or more persons and detecting whether the one or more persons has intersected the polygonal region (Para. 0187 lines 1-3, 0188 lines 1-2, 0194 lines 11-26, 0215 lines 13-17, 0232 lines 1-3, "within a patient zone" "detected person").
Ranasinghe et al. does not explicitly teach determining a set of keypoints on the one or more persons; and detecting whether at least one of the set of keypoints on the one or more persons has intersected the polygonal region.
However, Zhang et al. discloses the concept of determining a set of keypoints on a person and detecting whether a keypoint intersects an area to determine if a person has crossed into the area (Para. 0012 lines 1-2, 0013 lines 1-3, 0023 lines 1-2, 0032 lines 1-3, 0107 lines 5-7, 0108 lines 1-5, "key points" "overlap"). While Ranasinghe et al. discloses determining one or more persons and detecting whether the one or more persons has intersected a region, Zhang et al. teaches determining a set of keypoints on a person and detecting whether a keypoint intersects an area to determine if a person has crossed into the area. In both cases, a person is detected as well as whether the person has intersected a target region.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Ranasinghe et al. to replace the technique of determining a person and detecting whether the person has intersected a region with determining a set of keypoints on a person and detecting whether a keypoint intersects an area to determine if a person has crossed into the area as taught by Zhang et al. since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results from the substitution would be predictable, to detect a person and determine whether there has been a collision event between the polygonal region and the person.
With regards to claim 11, the combination of Ranasinghe et al. and Zhang et al. discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the set of keypoints are located at a head, hands, elbows, and feet of the one or more persons (Zhang et al.: Para. 0012 lines 1-2, 0013 lines 1-3, 0023 lines 1-2, 0032 lines 1-3, 0107 lines 5-7, "head" "hands" "elbows" "feet").
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranasinghe et al. (US 2021/0256835) in view of Li et al. (CN 114998819, see translated version).
With regards to claim 12, Ranasinghe et al. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein detecting the one or more persons in the hygiene sensitive area includes: detecting a body of a person and detecting a head of the person (Para. 0181 lines 1-3, 0241 lines 1-5, "boundary" "face" "body").
Ranasinghe et al. does not explicitly teach detecting a body of a person, the body being represented by a first rectangular region; detecting a head of the person, the head being represented by a second rectangular region; wherein the source region includes an intersection between the first rectangular region and the second rectangular region.
However, Li et al. discloses the concept of detecting a rectangular box of a body of a person and a rectangular box of a head of a person and detecting a person based on an intersection between the rectangular box of the body and the rectangular box of the head (Para. n0058 lines 1-5, "head detection box" "body detection box" "overlap" "same person") in order to accurately detect a person (Para. n0097 lines 1-2, "accurately").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of detecting a rectangular box of a body of a person and a rectangular box of a head of a person and detecting a person based on an intersection between the rectangular box of the body and the rectangular box of the head as taught by Li et al. into the method of Ranasinghe et al. The motivation for his would be to accurately detect a person in the hygiene sensitive area.
Claim(s) 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranasinghe et al. (US 2021/0256835) in view of Liu et al. (US 12,136,229).
With regards to claim 13, Ranasinghe et al. discloses the method as in claim 1, wherein detecting whether there has been a collision event between the target region and the source region includes: predicting bounding boxes for the one or more persons in the hygiene sensitive area (Para. 0187 lines 1-3, 0188 lines 1-2, 0194 lines 11-26, 0215 lines 13-17, 0232 lines 1-3, "boundary boxes" "detected person" "within a patient zone").
Ranasinghe et al. does not explicitly teach using a deep learning algorithm to predict axis-aligned bounding boxes (AABBs) for the one or more persons.
However, Liu et al. discloses the concept of using a deep learning algorithm to predict AABBs for an object (Col. 2 lines 25-28 and 45-50, Col. 3 lines 7-9, Fig. 1, “axis aligned candidate bounding box” “ML model”) in order to increase system speed and efficiency in determining bounding boxes (Col. 2 lines 62-67, Col. 3 line 1, "speed and efficiency").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of using a deep learning algorithm to predict AABBs for an object as taught by Liu et al. into the method of Ranasinghe et al. The motivation for this would be to increase system speed and efficiency in determining bounding boxes for the one or more persons in the hygiene sensitive areas.
With regards to claim 15, the combination of Ranasinghe et al. and Liu et al. discloses the method as in claim 13, further comprising: training the deep learning algorithm by minimizing a loss function of a classification error and a bounding box error (Liu et al.: Col. 2 lines 25-28 and 45-62, Col. 19 lines 57-61, Col. 20 lines 10-15 and 22-31 and 34-36, Fig. 1, Fig. 5, "loss").
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranasinghe et al. (US 2021/0256835) in view of Liu et al. (US 12,136,229) and further in view of Wang et al. (A Safety Warning Algorithm Based on Axis Aligned Bounding Box Method to Prevent Onsite Accidents of Mobile Construction Machineries).
With regards to claim 14, the combination of Ranasinghe et al. and Liu et al. discloses the method as in claim 13, wherein detecting whether there has been a collision event between the target region and the source region includes: determining whether there has been a collision event between a patient zone and a detected person (Ranasinghe et al.: Para. 0187 lines 1-3, 0188 lines 1-2, 0194 lines 11-26, 0232 lines 1-3, "within a patient zone").
The combination of Ranasinghe et al. and Liu et al. does not explicitly teach wherein detecting whether there has been a collision event between the target region and the source region further includes: determining whether there has been a collision event between two AABBs using either a point vs. AABB method or an AABB vs. AABB method.
However, Wang et al. discloses the concept of using axis-aligned bounding box (AABB) as bounding boxes and determining whether there has been a collision event between two AABBs using an AABB vs. AABB method (3.2.1. The Bounding Box Methods: Para. 1 lines 1-7 and 9-10, 3.4.1. Proximity Detection/Collision Warning Analysis: Para. 2 lines 1-10, Para. 3 lines 1-3, "two AABB intersect" "collision"). While the combination of Ranasinghe et al. and Liu et al. discloses determining whether there has been a collision event between two regions, Wang et al. teaches determining whether there has been a collision event between two AABBs using an AABB vs. AABB method. In both cases, a collision event is detected between two regions.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Ranasinghe et al. and Liu et al. to replace the technique of determining whether there has been a collision event between two regions with determining whether there has been a collision event between two AABBs using an AABB vs. AABB method as taught by Wang et al. since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results from the substitution would be predictable, to determine whether there has been a collision event between the target region and the source region.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672