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 .
Election/Restrictions
The newly submitted claims are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The originally presented claims are directed to detecting a hygiene event, determining a hygiene status of a user and whether the user should clean their hands, and providing augmented reality content based on the hygiene determinations; classified in USPC G06F 3/011 and G08B 21/245, CPC 345/419.
New claims 21 and 22 are directed to detecting a fill level of a hand cleaning fluid dispenser, and providing augmented reality content comprising a fill level indicator; classified in USPC G06T 19/006, CPC 705/2.
These inventions are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because a fill level indicator is not required to determine or display a hygiene status of a user. The subcombination has separate utility such as facilitating awareness of the fill level of a hand fluid dispenser.
Further, there would be a significant search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and
the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries).
Accordingly, restriction for examination purposes between the originally presented invention and the newly presented invention is proper.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21 and 22 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, 15, 16, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pinczuk et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0016455), referred herein as Pinczuk.
Regarding claim 1, Pinczuk teaches a system comprising an augmented reality device configured to present augmented reality content to a user, and at least one sensor configured to detect a hygiene event (fig 1; paragraph 39, lines 1-11; paragraph 55, lines 1-12 and the last 7 lines; paragraph 144; an augmented reality device comprises a sensor for detecting a hygiene event, and presents AR content to a user);
wherein the system is configured to determine a hygiene status of the user based at least in part on data collected by the at least one sensor (paragraph 55, lines 1-12; paragraph 146; a status of the hygiene event is determined based on sensor data);
wherein at least some of the augmented reality content is selected based on the hygiene status of the user (paragraph 55, the last 7 lines; paragraph 56, lines 1-5; paragraph 147, lines 1-6 and the last 11 lines; augmented reality content is selected based on the hygiene status);
wherein the system is configured to determine whether the user should clean their hands, and wherein, when the system determines that the user should clean their hands, the augmented reality content comprises a visual highlight of a hand cleaning station in the visual field of the user (figs 4-7; paragraph 55, lines 1-12 and the last 7 lines; paragraph 56; paragraph 122, the last 20 lines; paragraphs 143 and 144; paragraphs 146 and 147; the user is determined to have not completed cleaning their hands, and at the same time the hand cleaning station is visually highlighted to indicate a region that should be avoided while hand cleaning is in progress).
Regarding claim 2, Pinczuk teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the augmented reality content comprises visual content that is overlaid onto the visual field of the user (paragraph 44, lines 1-14; paragraph 144, lines 1-8);
wherein the visual content comprises a visual highlight of a feature in the visual field of the user (paragraph 55, lines 1-12; paragraph 56, lines 1-5; paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and the last 9 lines; paragraph 138); and
wherein the system is configured to determine whether the user is permitted to perform an action related to the feature based at least in part on the hygiene status of the user (figs 4-7; paragraph 47, lines 1-14; paragraph 55, lines 1-12 and the last 7 lines; paragraphs 126 and 129; paragraphs 134 and 135; paragraph 138; paragraph 147, the last 11 lines; augmented reality alerts may be provided, for example, based on rules limiting access to certain areas, such as maximum occupancy rules based on hygiene guidelines, or to what extent areas have been, or remain, at a certain level of hygiene, or limiting areas around individuals of varying degrees of hygiene, etc.)
Regarding claim 5, Pinczuk teaches a system comprising an augmented reality device configured to present augmented reality content to a user, and at least one sensor configured to detect a hygiene event (fig 1; paragraph 39, lines 1-11; paragraph 55, lines 1-12 and the last 7 lines; paragraph 144; an augmented reality device comprises a sensor for detecting a hygiene event, and presents AR content to a user);
wherein the system is configured to determine a hygiene status of the user based at least in part on data collected by the at least one sensor (paragraph 55, lines 1-12; paragraph 146; a status of the hygiene event is determined based on sensor data);
wherein at least some of the augmented reality content is selected based on the hygiene status of the user (paragraph 55, the last 7 lines; paragraph 56, lines 1-5; paragraph 147, lines 1-6 and the last 11 lines; augmented reality content is selected based on the hygiene status);
wherein the augmented reality content comprises visual content that is overlaid onto the visual field of the user (paragraph 44, lines 1-14; paragraph 144, lines 1-8);
wherein the visual content comprises a visual highlight of a feature in the visual field of the user (paragraph 55, lines 1-12; paragraph 56, lines 1-5; paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and the last 9 lines; paragraph 138); and
wherein the system is configured to determine whether the user is permitted to perform an action related to the feature based at least in part on the hygiene status of the user (figs 4-7; paragraph 47, lines 1-14; paragraph 55, lines 1-12 and the last 7 lines; paragraphs 126 and 129; paragraphs 134 and 135; paragraph 138; paragraph 147, the last 11 lines; augmented reality alerts may be provided, for example, based on rules limiting access to certain areas, such as maximum occupancy rules based on hygiene guidelines, or to what extent areas have been, or remain, at a certain level of hygiene, or limiting areas around individuals of varying degrees of hygiene, etc.).
Regarding claim 6, Pinczuk teaches the system according to claim 5, wherein, when the user is permitted to perform the action, the visual highlight is selected to inform the user that the user is permitted to perform the action (paragraph 47; paragraph 55, lines 1-12 and the last 7 lines; paragraphs 126 and 129; paragraphs 134 and 135; paragraphs 146 and 147).
Regarding claim 7, Pinczuk teaches the system according to claim 5, wherein, when the user is prohibited from performing the action, the visual highlight is selected to inform the user that the user is prohibited from performing the action (paragraph 55, lines 1-12 and the last 7 lines; paragraphs 126 and 129; paragraphs 134 and 135; paragraphs 146 and 147).
Regarding claim 8, Pinczuk teaches the system according to claim 5, wherein: the feature comprises a physical space and the action comprises entering the physical space; the feature comprises an object and the action comprises touching the object; or the feature comprises a person and the action comprises touching the person (paragraph 55, lines 1-12 and the last 7 lines; paragraph 56, lines 1-5; paragraph 57, the last 14 lines; paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and the last 9 lines; paragraph 68; paragraphs 138 and 143).
Regarding claim 9, Pinczuk teaches the system according to claim 5, wherein the system is configured to: determine, based at least in part on the data collected by the at least one sensor, when the hygiene status of the user has changed such that the user is now permitted to perform the action related to the feature; and modify the visual content to communicate to the user that the user is now permitted to perform the action (paragraph 55, lines 1-12 and the last 7 lines; paragraph 126 and 129; paragraph 138; paragraphs 146 and 147).
Regarding claim 10, Pinczuk teaches the system according to claim 5, wherein, when the user is prohibited from performing the action, the augmented reality device is configured to produce an alert if the user approaches the feature; and wherein the alert comprises an audible warning or a modification of the visual highlight (figs 4-7; paragraph 43, the last 11 lines; paragraph 57, the last 14 lines; paragraph 123; paragraphs 126 and 129; paragraphs 135 and 138).
Regarding claim 15, Pinczuk teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the hygiene event comprises at least one of: hand cleaning; dispensing a hand cleaning fluid; entering a patient room; entering a bathroom; touching a patient; putting on personal protective equipment; a failure to comply with a hand hygiene protocol; and a failure to perform hand cleaning (figs 4-7; paragraph 55, lines 1-12 and the last 7 lines; paragraph 74; paragraph 138; paragraphs 145 and 146; paragraph 147).
Regarding claim 16, Pinczuk teaches the system according to claim 7, wherein the system is configured to: determine, based at least in part on the data collected by the at least one sensor, when the hygiene status of the user has changed such that the user is now permitted to perform the action related to the feature; and modify the visual content to communicate to the user that the user is now permitted to perform the action (figs 4-7; paragraph 47, lines 1-14; paragraph 55, lines 1-12 and the last 7 lines; paragraphs 126 and 129; paragraphs 134 and 135; paragraph 138; paragraph 147, the last 11 lines; augmented reality alerts may be provided, for example, based on rules limiting access to certain areas, such as maximum occupancy rules based on hygiene guidelines, or to what extent areas have been, or remain, at a certain level of hygiene);
wherein the hygiene event comprises at least one of: hand cleaning; dispensing a hand cleaning fluid; entering a patient room; entering a bathroom; touching a patient; putting on personal protective equipment; a failure to comply with a hand hygiene protocol; and a failure to perform hand cleaning (figs 4-7; paragraph 55, lines 1-12 and the last 7 lines; paragraph 74; paragraph 138; paragraphs 145 and 146; paragraph 147); and
wherein: the feature comprises a physical space and the action comprises entering the physical space; the feature comprises an object and the action comprises touching the object; or the feature comprises a person and the action comprises touching the person (paragraph 55, lines 1-12 and the last 7 lines; paragraph 56, lines 1-5; paragraph 57, the last 14 lines; paragraph 61, lines 1-9 and the last 9 lines; paragraph 68; paragraphs 138 and 143).
Regarding claim 23, Pinczuk teaches the system according to claim 5, wherein the least one sensor is configured to detect a hygiene activity of a person, wherein the system is configured to determine if the person has failed to comply with a hand hygiene protocol, and wherein, if the person has failed to comply with the hand hygiene protocol, at least some of the augmented reality content is selected to inform the user that the person is in breach of the hand hygiene protocol (figs 4-7; paragraph 55, lines 1-12 and the last 7 lines; paragraph 56; paragraph 122, the last 20 lines; paragraphs 143 and 144; paragraphs 146 and 147).
Regarding claim 24, Pinczuk teaches the system according to claim 5, wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect an infection status of a person, and wherein at least some of the augmented reality content is selected based on the infection status of the person (paragraph 51, lines 1-21; paragraph 135).
Regarding claim 25, Pinczuk teaches the system according to claim 24, wherein at least some of the augmented reality content is selected to inform the user that the person has an infection or a possible infection, and wherein the at least one sensor comprises a touchless thermometer or a biological particle sensor (paragraph 51; paragraph 74, lines the last 17 lines; paragraphs 133 and 135; paragraph 137).
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.
Claims 13, 26, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pinczuk, in view of Kothari et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0351520), referred herein as Kothari.
Regarding claim 13, Pinczuk teaches the system according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the system, wherein the at least one sensor is incorporated into a hand cleaning fluid dispenser, and wherein the at least one sensor detects when hand cleaning fluid has been dispensed from the hand cleaning fluid dispenser.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kothari teaches a system comprising an augmented reality device to present AR content to a user and at least one sensor to detect a hygiene event, wherein the system determines a hygiene status of the user based on the sensor data and selects AR content based on the hygiene status (fig 3; fig 6; paragraphs 31-34), wherein the at least one sensor is incorporated into a hand cleaning fluid dispenser (fig 3; paragraphs 37-41; paragraphs 61 and 62), and wherein the at least one sensor detects when hand cleaning fluid has been dispensed from the hand cleaning fluid dispenser (paragraph 19; paragraphs 30 and 36; paragraph 44; paragraph 64; paragraphs 76-79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the dispenser sensor with the sensor system of Pinczuk because this provides objective, independent, real-time monitoring of the hygiene event at the dispenser itself, which compels the user to meet hygiene compliance standards and practice effective hygiene techniques, thereby improving hygiene safety (see, for example, Kothari, paragraphs 29 and 46; paragraph 99).
Regarding claim 26, Pinczuk teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the at least one sensor is configured to detect a pathogen of concern, and wherein, when the system detects the pathogen of concern, the augmented reality content comprises a path for the user to follow to reach a destination while avoiding the pathogen of concern (paragraph 23; paragraph 48; paragraph 51, lines 1-20; paragraphs 72 and 73; paragraph 135).
Pinczuk does not explicitly teach a dispenser containing a preferred cleaning fluid for killing the pathogen of concern.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kothari teaches a system comprising an augmented reality device to present AR content to a user and at least one sensor to detect a hygiene event, wherein the system determines a hygiene status of the user based on the sensor data and selects AR content based on the hygiene status (fig 3; fig 6; paragraphs 31-34), and wherein the system comprises a dispenser containing a preferred cleaning fluid for killing a pathogen of concern (paragraph 19; paragraphs 30 and 36; paragraphs 76-79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the dispenser with pathogen-killing cleaning fluid of Kothari with the hand cleaning system of Pinczuk because this helps ensure successful hand hygiene, while providing real-time monitoring of the hygiene event at the dispenser itself, which assists the user in meeting hygiene compliance standards and practice effective hygiene techniques (see, for example, Kothari, paragraphs 29 and 46; paragraph 99).
Regarding claim 29, the limitations of this claim substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 13; thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 27 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 27, the prior art teaches the system of claim 5. However, in the particular context of claims 5 and 27 as a whole, the prior art does not teach the system of claim 5, wherein the augmented reality content comprises a patient chart; and wherein the system is configured to make the patient chart inaccessible until a hand hygiene protocol has been followed.
Regarding claim 28, the prior art teaches the system of claim 5. However, in the particular context of claims 5 and 28 as a whole, the prior art does not teach the system of claim 5, wherein the augmented reality content comprises information related to a hand cleaning fluid dispenser; and wherein the information comprises fill level information, product type information, product expiration date information, and information about pathogens that have been detected by the hand cleaning fluid dispenser.
Response to Arguments
On pages 11 and 12 of the Applicant’s Remarks, with respect to the prior art rejection of amended claim 1, the Applicant argues that Pinczuk does not teach a visual highlight of a hand cleaning station because Pinczuk provides an overlay to highlight regions of the user’s hands that have not been washed, but does not mention a visual highlight of a hand cleaning station, and figures 6 and 7 illustrate a graphic used to identify high-touch surfaces which should be avoided, rather than a visual highlight of the hand cleaning station. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments.
While it is true that Pinczuk may provide an overlay of regions of the user’s hands, and also provides overlays identifying high-touch surfaces, the broad terminology used in the claim has a variety of interpretations, and it is respectfully submitted that Pinczuk teaches these limitations, as claimed. The citations to Pinczuk clearly disclose determining that the user should clean their hands; as just one example, if a user’s hand washing is incomplete, an overlay indicates the status of the hand washing, and that the user should complete the washing of their hands. Pinczuk also discloses, for example in figures 4, 6, and 7, and the citations provided above, that when the system is evaluating the hand washing status of the user (e.g. that the hand washing is incomplete, and the user should continue washing their hands), visual highlighting of the hand cleaning station is provided, which, as Applicant points out, may comprise indicating surfaces of the hand cleaning station that are high-touch and/or pose a potential hygiene risk, and thus should be avoided during cleaning. While this may serve a slightly different purpose than Applicant’s intended augmented reality content, or be implemented in a different way, the limitation in question currently only requires determining that the user should clean their hands, and when that determination happens, visually highlighting the hand cleaning station. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that this feature is disclosed by Pinczuk, and that as the claim currently stands, any potentially distinguishing features between the invention and the prior art regarding the manner of highlighting, the means by which the hand cleaning determination is made, etc., are not currently reflected in the claims.
On pages 11 and 12 of the Applicant’s Remarks, with respect to the prior art rejection of amended claim 5, the Applicant argues that none of the citations to Pinczuk teach determine whether a user is permitted to perform an action based on the hygiene status. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument.
It is first noted that this argument amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The broad terminology in the claim requires determining user permission to perform “an action related to the feature” based on the hygiene status of the user. The provided citations disclose, inter alia, determining a hygiene status of a user and providing graphic overlays, based on hygiene status, that indicate if a user may enter a room or area, be in varying degrees of proximity to other users, touch certain objects or people, and so on. These are just some examples of how Pinczuk teaches these limitations. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that this feature is disclosed by Pinczuk, and that as the claim currently stands, any potentially distinguishing features regarding what action the user may or may not perform, how the action “relates” to the feature, what the “feature” is, etc., are not currently reflected in the claims.
On page 13 of the Applicant's Remarks, the Applicant argues that claim 13 is not taught by the prior art, insomuch as it depends from claim 1, which is not taught by the prior art. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument, for the reasons discussed above.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nelson (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150077258); Infection control monitoring system.
Wang; Electronic Monitoring Systems for Hand Hygiene: Systematic Review of Technology; Journal of Medical Internet Research; 2021
Wu; An Autonomous Hand Hygiene Tracking Sensor System for Prevention of Hospital Associated Infections; IEEE; 2021
Shrimali; A Novel Deep Learning-, Camera-, and Sensor-Based System for Enforcing Hand Hygiene Compliance in Healthcare Facilities; IEEE; June 2023
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID T WELCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30-5:30 EST, and alternate Fridays, 9:00-2:30 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
DAVID T. WELCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/DAVID T WELCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights