DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
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 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected in the Instant Application.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to priority benefits of JP 2024-052726 filed 3/28/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 3/21/2025 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered if signed and initialed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to observation and judgement without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “acquire a wearer authentication result indicating whether or not a wearer is a predetermined medical practitioner…acquire a patient authentication result…acquire medication registration information…” which are observations and “and perform control to display [] a three-point authentication result regarding permissibility of a medical act of administering the medication to the patient by the wearer…” which is a judgment. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not improve a computer or effectuate a particular prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional features use conventional computer hardware to apply the judicial exception on a computer.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to practicing medicine, which is a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, without significantly more. The analysis is similar to the above analysis, except the features are also following rules or instructions for behavior and constitute a separate ground of the claims being a judicial exception.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of dependency and because they do not obviate the above-recited deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 6 requires “the authentication support apparatus is configured to operate [] the eyewear-type wearable terminal such that the wearer perceives a fact that the medical act is not permitted.” The feature is indefinite because it calls for a subjective view into the wearer’s mind.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balram (US Pub. 2015/0088546).
With respect to Claim 1, Balram teaches an authentication support apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, (para. 45; smartphone with processor and memory.)
wherein the at least one processor is configured to: acquire a wearer authentication result indicating whether or not a wearer is a predetermined medical practitioner based on an iris authentication result of the wearer who is wearing the eyewear-type wearable terminal; acquire a patient authentication result based on authentication information of a patient imaged by the eyewear-type wearable terminal; (Fig. 1a, paras. 33-35, 45; computing and communications module 104 may be a smartphone that is connected to the glasses. Fig. 3, paras. 51-52; Front facing and eye tracking cameras provide images to CCM interface unit 316. Para. 55; CCM interface is used to communicate with communication module 104. Paras. 52, 81-82, 107; iris detection is used to authenticate wearer such as medical professional and other persons such as customers or patients.)
But Balram does not explicitly teach a three-point authentication result regarding permissibility of a medical act of administering the medication to the patient by the wearer.
Balram, however, does render obvious acquire medication registration information indicating a correspondence between a medication specified based on medication information of the medication imaged by the eyewear-type wearable terminal and the patient who is an administration target; (Examiner asserts that Balram may anticipate, but out of an abundance of caution Examiner will utilize obviousness. Balram explicitly considers a medical professional wearing the glasses to authenticate themselves and a patient, and then using image data to “identify the medical situation” and correctly treat the patient, including by displaying information “about the patient’s allergies to drugs,” see paras. 113-117. Examiner asserts that a reasonable reading of Balram is that it receives image data of medications. Regardless, Balram also explicitly discloses device usage by the patient that expressly images medication. Para. 129; Patient wears device and image capture is used to capture pill images. System determines if conditions for taking medications have been satisfied and sends a warning message. However, this is a different use-case embodiment. Consequently, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to have a medical professional utilize the image capture of pills in order to effectuate the ability of the system to identify the medical situation and provide a warning that the patient is allergic to a given drug. Simple substitution for expected benefits is obvious, see MPEP 2143(I)(B), and it was obvious to one of ordinary skill to substitute the doctor for the patient in order to prevent negative drug interactions due to doctor error.)
and perform control to display, on a wearer screen of the eyewear-type wearable terminal, a three-point authentication result regarding permissibility of a medical act of administering the medication to the patient by the wearer based on the wearer authentication result, the patient authentication result, and the medication registration information. (para. 113; system determines incorrect use of medical equipment. Para. 115; after authenticating the user and the patient the system identifies the medical situation and then displays instructions, warnings or reminders to the user. For example, information about the patient’s allergies to drugs or usage of the correct drugs and proper procedures may be presented to the medical professional. Para. 129; system determines if conditions for taking medications have been satisfied and sends a warning message. Para. 116; triage performed by medical personnel can be verified or double-checked. Paras. 42, 82; authentication that wearer or customer are authorized to perform a certain action.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Balram with the three-point authentication in order to verify that a medical practitioner wearer is authorized to administer medication to a particular patient to prevent medical mistakes. (Balram, para. 117, and paras. 42, 82, 115, 129)
With respect to Claim 2, modified Balram teaches the authentication support apparatus according to claim 1, and Balram also teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform, in a case where a predetermined operation of the wearer through the eyewear-type wearable terminal is detected, transition of an operation state of the eyewear-type wearable terminal to a three-point authentication execution state in which at least the authentication information and the medication information are acquirable. (Fig. 9, para. 82-83; In steps 902-906 the user wears the device, and the device identifies the wearer and authorizes them to perform certain actions before step 908 where it identifies the customer. Therefore, the system identifies user and creates a context prior to authentication of others. para. 86; request for a transaction. Para. 92; requested task and customer id sent to backend server. In a medical context, para. 115; system identifies the medical situation. The medical situation is used for determining the relevant process or checklist. Para. 129; system tracks situation and patient activities such as a user about to perform an injection to determine if conditions for medication have been satisfied. Therefore, either context or identified actions such as a user about to perform an injection or a specific request for a particular transaction can trigger analysis of whether the user can perform that action for a customer/patient.)
With respect to Claim 3, modified Balram teaches the authentication support apparatus according to claim 2, and Balram also teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform transition to the three-point authentication execution state in a case where the wearer authentication result indicates that the wearer is the predetermined medical practitioner and the predetermined operation of the wearer is detected. (Fig. 9, para. 82-83; In steps 902-906 the user wears the device, and the device identifies the wearer and authorizes them to perform certain actions before step 908 where it identifies the customer. para. 86; request for a transaction. Para. 92; requested task and customer id sent to backend server.)
With respect to Claim 5, modified Balram teaches the authentication support apparatus according to claim 1, and Balram also teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform control to display, together with the three-point authentication result, display information describing a reason why the medical act is not permitted on the wearer screen of the eyewear-type wearable terminal in a case where the three-point authentication result indicates that the medical act is not permitted. (This feature is nonfunctional descriptive material not subject to weight. Regardless, see para. 113; system detects incorrect use and provides corrective instruction. Para. 115; warning about patient being allergic to drug. Para. 129; warning the medication is not prescribed to patient or that conditions for taking the medication are not satisfied.)
With respect to Claim 6, modified Balram teaches the authentication support apparatus according to claim 1, and Balram also teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to operate, in a case where the three-point authentication result indicates the medical act is not permitted, the eyewear-type wearable terminal such that the wearer perceives a fact that the medical act is not permitted. (This feature is nonfunctional descriptive material not subject to weight. Regardless, see para. 113; system detects incorrect use and provides corrective instruction. Para. 115; warning about patient being allergic to drug. Para. 129; warning the medication is not prescribed to patient or that conditions for taking the medication are not satisfied.)
With respect to Claim 7, modified Balram teaches the authentication support apparatus according to claim 1, and Balram also teaches wherein the eyewear-type wearable terminal incorporates the authentication support apparatus. (para. 33; interface module and computing and communication module are preferably portable and used together. Simple combination and making integral are both obvious acts, see MPEP 2143(I)(A) and 2144. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the modules in order to ensure that the modules are kept together.)
With respect to Claim 8, Balram teaches an authentication support system comprising: an eyewear-type wearable terminal; (Fig. 1a, paras. 33-34; Human interface module 102 is a wearable computing device. Fig. 2, para. 45; the wearable human interface module may take the form of eyeglasses.)
and an authentication support apparatus, (Fig. 1a, paras. 33-35, 45; computing and communications module 104 may be a smartphone that is connected to the glasses.)
wherein the eyewear-type wearable terminal includes: at least one terminal memory; (Fig. 3, para. 46, 51; human interface module has memory.)
and at least one terminal processor coupled to the at least one terminal memory, (Fig. 3, para. 46, 50; human interface module has processor.)
the at least one terminal processor is configured to transmit an iris image of a wearer who is wearing the eyewear-type wearable terminal, authentication information of an imaged patient, (Fig. 3, paras. 51-52; Front facing and eye tracking cameras provide images to CCM interface unit 316. Para. 55; CCM interface is used to communicate with communication module 104. Paras. 52, 81-82, 107; iris detection is used to authenticate wearer such as medical professional and other persons such as customers or patients.)
the authentication support apparatus includes: at least one apparatus memory; and at least one apparatus processor coupled to the apparatus memory, the at least one apparatus processor is configured to: (para. 45; smartphone with processor and memory.)
acquire a wearer authentication result indicating whether or not the wearer is a predetermined medical practitioner based on an iris authentication result for the iris image received from the eyewear-type wearable terminal; acquire a patient authentication result based on the authentication information received from the eyewear-type wearable terminal; (Fig. 1a, paras. 37, 42, 52, 81-83, 107-108, 115; backend service server receives images from the human interface module through the communications module is used to authenticate the wearer and the patient.)
But Balram does not explicitly teach a three-point authentication result regarding permissibility of a medical act of administering the medication to the patient by the wearer.
Balram, however, does render obvious and medication information of an imaged medication to the authentication support apparatus, (Examiner asserts that Balram may anticipate, but out of an abundance of caution Examiner will utilize obviousness. Balram explicitly considers a medical professional wearing the glasses to authenticate themselves and a patient, and then using image data to “identify the medical situation” and correctly treat the patient, including by displaying information “about the patient’s allergies to drugs,” see paras. 113-117. Examiner asserts that a reasonable reading of Balram is that it receives image data of medications. Regardless, Balram also explicitly discloses device usage by the patient that expressly images medication. Para. 129; Patient wears device and image capture is used to capture pill images. However, this is a different use-case embodiment. Consequently, Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to have a medical professional utilize the image capture of pills in order to effectuate the ability of the system to identify the medical situation and provide a warning that the patient is allergic to a given drug. Simple substitution for expected benefits is obvious, see MPEP 2143(I)(B), and it was obvious to one of ordinary skill to substitute the doctor for the patient in order to prevent negative drug interactions due to doctor error.)
acquire medication registration information indicating a correspondence between the medication specified based on the medication information received from the eyewear-type wearable terminal and the patient who is an administration target; (para. 129; processing of captured image used to identify the type of medication.)
and transmit a three-point authentication result regarding permissibility of a medical act of administering the medication to the patient by the wearer to the eyewear-type wearable terminal based on the wearer authentication result, the patient authentication result, and the medication registration information, and the at least one terminal processor of the eyewear-type wearable terminal is configured to display the three-point authentication result received from the authentication support apparatus on a wearer screen. (para. 113; system determines incorrect use of medical equipment. Para. 115; after authenticating the user and the patient the system identifies the medical situation and then displays instructions, warnings or reminders to the user. For example, information about the patient’s allergies to drugs or usage of the correct drugs and proper procedures may be presented to the medical professional. Para. 129; system determines if conditions for taking medications have been satisfied and sends a warning message. Para. 116; triage performed by medical personnel can be verified or double-checked. Paras. 42, 82; authentication that wearer or customer are authorized to perform a certain action.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of Balram with the three-point authentication in order to verify that a medical practitioner wearer is authorized to administer medication to a particular patient to prevent medical mistakes. (Balram, para. 117, and paras. 42, 82, 115, 129)
With respect to Claim 9, it is substantially similar to Claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balram (US Pub. 2015/0088546) in view of Choi (US Pub. 2010/0130250).
With respect to Claim 4, modified Balram teaches the authentication support apparatus according to claim 2, but does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform control to display, in a case where an image related to the patient or the medication is captured by the eyewear-type wearable terminal after transitioning to the three-point authentication execution state, a fact that the image is captured on the wearer screen.
Choi, however, does teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform control to display, in a case where an image related to the patient or the medication is captured by the eyewear-type wearable terminal after transitioning to the three-point authentication execution state, a fact that the image is captured on the wearer screen. (Examiner asserts that this is nonfunctional descriptive material not entitled to patentable weight. Regardless, for patient and medication images see Balram, paras. 83, 129; camera recognition of customer, medication. Then see Choi, para. 25; display unit displays captured image and displays a confirmation message of the storage of the picture.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the method of modified Balram with the fact that the image is captured in order to provide additional information on what the item is.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights