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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-14 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellig (US 2021/0027882) in view of Wildman et al. (Patent No. 6,727,818).
Claims 1, 11 and 20, Wellig teaches a method of determining hand hygiene compliance rate for hospital staff (abstract) comprising:
providing a sensor configured to determine an entry event that is a function of a person's entry into a room (par. 38: location sensor 12 to identify a person entering a room);
wherein the sensor comprises wireless communication circuitry for transmitting a signal indicative of the entry event (par. 20: the location sensor 12 may include a transceiver 40 that is configured to both transmit signals into a space and receive signals reflected off of objects within the space);
obtaining information related to a room status of the room (par. 28&39: obtaining procedure compliance for a particular room for analysis);
obtaining information indicative of an entry event indicating a person has entered the room (par. 47: If the person 306c enters the room and bypasses the hand sanitizing station 310, an alert 314 may be sent to the user (e.g., via a wearable device or user device as described herein) reminding the user to return to the hand sanitizing station 310);
determining whether the entry event creates a hand hygiene opportunity (par. 47: the system tracks if the person 306c has failed to hover at the defined procedure location 312 for at least a threshold period of time. Thus, entry into a room would trigger procedure compliance required by assigned room);
providing a dispenser for dispensing a product (par. 36: hand sanitizer pump);
obtaining information indicative of a dispense event indicating product has been dispensed (par. 36: detecting movement of the sanitizer pump);
wherein determining whether the entry event created a hand hygiene opportunity is a function of the information related to the room status and the role of the person (par. 28: The procedural compliance module 38 may include one or more defined procedures that should be performed in a particular room of a facility in order to reduce the risk of infection. Each defined procedure may include one more conditions or actions that should be met in order for the procedure to have been considered as performed correctly or to a standard, as will be described in more detail herein. It is contemplated that the defined procedure may be different for different types of rooms and/or a category type of the person entering the room).
Wellig does not teach determining whether to credit the person with a dispense event; and
determining a compliance rate as a function of opportunities and dispense events.
In the field of endeavor, Wildman teaches calculating compliance rating of washed hands two out of five required times. Compliance report 128 provides the compliance rating of caregiver 110 and provide information such as the time each compliance record was recorded, the time each non-compliance record was recorded, and the locations of each, see FIG. 13B. (col. 12, ln 65-col. 13, ln 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art at the time of filing to modify Wellig’s system to include calculating compliance rating as taught by Wildman in order to let the user know his/her compliance level, a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art could have applied the known technique to improve Wellig’s system and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2, the combination teaches further comprising obtaining information about a role of the person, and wherein determining whether the entry event created a hand hygiene opportunity is a function of the role of the person (Wellig par. 39: the identity of the person or a job category of the identified person entering them room may be transmitted or relayed to the system 10 via a wearable device 16 and/or the user device 18. This may allow the system 10 to determine what defined procedure should be performed and what conditions should be met in order for the person to have complied with the procedure).
Claims 3 and 13, the combination teaches further comprising obtaining a signal that the person has exited the room and determining whether the exit event created a hand hygiene opportunity, wherein determining whether the exit event created a hand hygiene opportunity is a function of the information related to the room status (Wildman col. 15, ln 32-35: each time a caregiver exits a room designation as contamination zone, a hand hygiene is triggered to complete within a trigger time).
Claims 4 and 14, the combination teaches comprising obtaining information about a role of the person (Wellig par. 39: the identity of the person or a job category of the identified person entering them room may be transmitted or relayed to the system 10 via a wearable device 16 and/or the user device 18. This may allow the system 10 to determine what defined procedure should be performed and what conditions should be met in order for the person to have complied with the procedure), and wherein determining whether the exit event created a hand hygiene opportunity is a function of the role of the person (see claim 3 rejection, and further col. 26, ln 12-14: obtain an employee profile for the individual including name, number, title, unit etc.).
Claims 9 and 19, the combination teaches further comprising determining an additional hand hygiene opportunity is created as a function of a period of time (Wellig see claim 1 rejection regarding detection of user in a room to initiate a hand hygiene opportunity. Thus, if the user leave the room and enters a different room, another hygiene opportunity will be created with procedure compliance associated with that room).
Claim 10, the combination teaches further comprising determining a compliance rate that is a function of one or more opportunities and one or more dispense events (Wildman col. 12, ln 65-67: determine compliance rating).
Claim 12, the combination teaches further comprising obtaining information about a role of the person (Wellig par. 39: the identity of the person or a job category of the identified person entering them room may be transmitted or relayed to the system 10 via a wearable device 16 and/or the user device 18. This may allow the system 10 to determine what defined procedure should be performed and what conditions should be met in order for the person to have complied with the procedure), and wherein the compliance rate is a function of the role of the person (see claim 1 rejection regarding compliance rating calculated for each individual).
Claim(s) 5-8 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wellig (US 2021/0027882) in view of Wildman et al. (Patent No. 6,727,818), and further in view of Hood et al. (US 2017/0098366).
Claims 5 and 15, the combination does not teach wherein the information related to room status comprises information indicative of contact precautions.
In the field of endeavor, Hood teaches an identification of the room type as either “standard” or “enteric.” A room type being designated as “enteric” corresponds to a requirement for caregivers to wash their hands with soap to meet the hand hygiene compliance policy (par. 80&82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination’s room designation status with contact precautions taught by Hood in order to strengthen hygiene protocol requiring user to wash their hand when encountering enteric room designation, because of certain infection is resistant to just hand rub disinfectant (Hood par. 79).
Claims 6 and 16, the combination teaches wherein the contact precautions are indicative of a C-Difficile infection (Hood par. 79).
Claims 7 and 17, the combination teaches wherein determining whether to credit the person with a dispense event is a function of whether the dispense event is a soap dispense (Hood par. 70: in step 414, the remote analysis server 102 may transmit a notification of compliance to one or more visual and/or audio indicators capable of indicating to the user that the user is in compliance with the hand hygiene policy).
Claims 8 and 18, the combination does not teach wherein the information related to room status comprises information indicative of occupancy of the room.
In the field of endeavor, Hood teaches a remote analysis server 102 configured to monitor the proximity detection 102 for a signal with data to include a presence of a patient within the contamination zone (par. 74).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination’s system by including additional information regarding a room occupancy status as taught by Hood in order to determine whether hand hygiene completed by the caregiver has potentially been compromised (Hood par. 74).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to An T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)270-5167. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5 ET.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/AN T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686
Prosecution Insights