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 .
Claim Status: Claims 1-7, 9-19, and 21-22 are pending.
Examiner’s note: Even though Claims 1-7, 9-19, and 21-22 are not rejected under prior art, it is not indicated as allowable in light of pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 6, 2026 and June 8, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 6, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 13, Applicant stated that “[t]he claims cannot be fairly said to fall into one of the groups of abstract idea” with an example that “no mathematical concepts are recited or claimed”.
This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
The limitations that are directed to mental process have been listed in the 101 section. The “specifically-trained neural network” is directed to mathematical concept.
Applicant stated that “the claims recite the performance of operations that require specific sensors, specific signal processors, and specific computing components to perform” and that “[t]he human mind cannot receive sensor signals from physical sensors, cannot process those sensor signals, and cannot generate new, processed sensor signals that are utilized for further processing.” Applicant stated that “at least the amended features of the claims illustrate a computer-centric solution to the computer-centric problem of causing devices to output alerts only when merited and thus preventing false alarms” and “the claims now specifically recite causing multiple disparate sensors to generate and send sensor data”.
This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
The claimed sensor, processors, and computing components are generic structures that do not amount to significantly more than judicial exception. Additionally, collecting and sending/receiving sensor signals and outputting alerts are considered as insignificant extra-solutional activity. Claimed analysis of sensor signal is an abstract idea. If computers or other machinery merely as a tool performs an existing process, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05.
Applicant stated that “the claims now expressly recite multiple technological improvements to computer-centric technologies” and that “[a]t least these amendments show that the claims result in an improvement to clinical devices that would output alerts by automatically causing such alerts to be output by physical components of the devices with fewer false alerts, in line with the patent-eligible claims in Examples 47 and 48 from the July 2024 PEG Update”.
This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Examiner considers that current claim is similar to claim 2 of Example 47 that has been indicated as ineligible.
Applicant referred to Ex Parte Desjardins.
This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
In contrast to the Desjardins case (In view of “Advance notice of change to MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins” dated December 5, 2025; On page 2, please see the revision of MPEP 2106.04(d), subsection III), the claims do not recite any components in the machine learning model itself that provide the asserted improvements. The generic claim limitation of “specifically-trained neural network” lacks specificity that provides the asserted improvements.
Applicant stated that “even assuming arguendo that the Office could satisfy the first prong of the ‘abstract idea’ analysis, under the second prong, the claims are integrated into a practical application and are therefore not directed to an abstract idea;” “[f]or example, the claims recite novel functionality specific to the computer-centric interaction between multiple systems and clinical devices.” Applicant stated that “at least these features show that claims are integrated into practical application specific to distributed network management.” On page 16, Applicant stated that “[s]imilar to the claims under consideration in Bascom, even if arguendo all of the features that the currently pending claims recite are ‘known’ or ‘conventional,’ the claims at issue are still patent eligible because the claims recite a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement” of those features and so recite an ‘inventive concept’ and ‘specific technical solution.’” Applicant stated that “[s]pecifically, the claims at issue can correlate a level of computing and communications hardware with a level of service need in a way and using particular types of information that provides both an inventive concept and a specific technical solution.” Applicant stated that “an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry.”
These arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
The claimed invention recites abstract idea without additional elements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception or that integrate abstract idea into a practical application. The analysis has been provided under the 101 section with the evidence of case law and prior art reference. As provided in the analysis, there aren’t claimed arrangements that amount to significantly more than judicial exception or integrate abstract idea into practical application.
The analysis in 101 section includes case laws in MPEP sections to support why certain limitations were considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
On page 17, Applicant stated that Applicant has amended the claims to specifically tie the claimed invention to computer-centric processes that cannot be performed in the human mind, and the amended claims now clearly effectuate technological improvements to computing technologies as described above.
This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. If computers or other machinery merely as a tool performs an existing process, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05.
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 1-7, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method.
To determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility, the claim is evaluated according to a stepwise process as described in MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.03-2106.04.
The instant claims are evaluated according to such analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, Claim 1 is directed towards a method.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the judicial exception relied upon by the instantly claimed invention is an abstract idea, and the limitation that sets forth or describes the abstract idea is: “generating, by the computing device and utilizing a signal processor and specifically-trained neural network, a first processed signal from the first sensor data that indicates first measurements of a vital sign of the individual measured during a first time period”; “determining, by the computing device and utilizing the first processed signal, variance data indicating a variance of the first measurements”; “confirming, while the multiple sensors are associated with the individual, that the first measurements are stable by: determining that the variance of the first measurements is below a variance threshold; and determining that a medication administered to the individual is inactive during the first time period based at least in part on determining that the first time period occurred greater than a first amount of time after the medication was administered; based on confirming that the first measurements are stable, generating a baseline for the vital sign based on the first measurements”; “generating a first vital sign threshold based on the baseline”; “generating, by the computing device and utilizing the signal processor and the specifically-trained neural network, a second processed signal from the second sensors that indicates second measurements of the vital sign of the individual measured during a second time period spaced in time from the first time period”; “generating a second vital sign threshold associated with the second time period and based on the second measurements”; “determining that at least one of the second measurements is outside of a range bounded by the second vital sign threshold, the second measurements indicating that the multiple sensors individually detected conditions outside of the range.”
The reason that the above limitations are abstract idea is because they are directed to mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical concepts.
Please see the following analogous types of data manipulations that courts have found to be abstract ideas (all taken from MPEP § 2106.04):
collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The steps of data collection and usage carried out in Applicant's claims are akin to a mental process because they are the type of calculations that could theoretically be carried out mentally, but are merely implemented using generic collection technology. The 2019 revised§ 101 guidance makes clear that the "mental process" category of abstract ideas does not only apply to steps actually carried out mentally; it also applies to the types of processes that could be carried out mentally, but are instead carried out using generic processing/collection technology.
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites “a computing device” and “a signal processor” which can be interpreted as a generic processor. The processing device and the programmable processor do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because it is merely using a generic processor as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites additional elements, “causing multiple sensors to send first sensor data via a network”, “wherein: the multiple sensors differ from each other; causing the multiple sensors to send the first sensor data includes causing the multiple sensors to generate the first sensor data; and the multiple sensors are individually configured to detect various biological conditions of an individual,” “receiving, via the network and from the multiple sensors, second sensor data”, and “in response to determining that at least one of the second measurements is outside of the range, transmitting, via the network and to at least one clinical device, a command that causes the at least one clinical device to automatically execute instructions to cause a physical component of the at least one clinical device to output an alarm”; however, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because receiving data and indicating an alarm amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
The following are relevant examples of similar limitations which courts have found not to constitute improvements to computers or improvements to other technology or technical field:
Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TIJ Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.
It is further noted that merely collecting the necessary data using known, generic sensors (or other data gathering components) only amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity; see MPEP § 2106.05(g). Applicant's claimed invention does not affect/change the functionality of the technology being used. Rather, Applicant's claimed invention uses the claimed technology for its standard, well-known purpose, e.g. known sensors are used to collect data which they are known to be capable of collecting, known generic processing circuitry is used to perform data calculations/ comparisons, etc. Applicant's invention does not result in improved performance of the sensors, the processing circuitry, etc.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the claim recites additional elements, “causing multiple sensors to send first sensor data via a network”, “wherein: the multiple sensors differ from each other; causing the multiple sensors to send the first sensor data includes causing the multiple sensors to generate the first sensor data; and the multiple sensors are individually configured to detect various biological conditions of an individual,” “receiving, via the network and from the multiple sensors, second sensor data”, and “in response to determining that at least one of the second measurements is outside of the range, transmitting, via the network and to at least one clinical device, a command that causes the at least one clinical device to automatically execute instructions to cause a physical component of the at least one clinical device to output an alarm”. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because it is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). See MPEP 2106.05(d)II.
The courts have recognized electronic recordkeeping as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log). See MPEP 2106.05(d)II.
Para. [0112] of the instant application states that the output devices are well known in the art and need not be discussed at length.
Para. [0039] of US 20090182240 A1 and para. [0008] of US 20050131282 A1 show that “multiple sensors [that] differ from each other” that are “individually configured to detect various biological conditions of an individual” are routine and conventional.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to the instantly rejected dependent claims 2-7, 21, and 22, these claims when analyzed as a whole are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to a judicial exception and/or do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a system.
To determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility, the claim is evaluated according to a stepwise process as described in MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.03-2106.04.
The instant claims are evaluated according to such analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, Claim 9 is directed towards a system.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the judicial exception relied upon by the instantly claimed invention is an abstract idea, and the limitation that sets forth or describes the abstract idea is:
“generating, by the system and utilizing a signal processor and a specifically-trained neural network, a first processed signal from the first sensor data that indicates first measurements of a vital sign of the individual measured during a first time period”; “determining, utilizing the first processed signal, a variance of the first measurements”; “confirming, while the multiple sensors are associated with the individual, that the first measurements are stable by: determining that the variance of the first measurements is below a variance threshold, and determining that a medication administered to the individual is inactive during the first time period based at least in part on determining that the first time period occurred greater than a first amount of time after the medication was administered”; “based on confirming that the first measurements are stable, generating a baseline for the vital sign based on the first measurements”; “generating a first vital sign threshold based on the baseline”; “generating, by the system and utilizing the signal processor and the specifically-trained neural network, a second processed signal from the second sensor data that indicates second measurements of the vital sign of the individual taken during a second time period spaced in time from the first time period”; “generating a second vital sign threshold associated with the second time period and based on the second measurements”; “determining that at least one of the second measurements is outside of a range bounded by the second vital sign threshold, the second measurements indicating that the multiple sensors individually detected conditions outside of the range”.
The reason that the above limitations are abstract idea is because they are directed to mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical concepts.
The steps of data collection and usage carried out in Applicant's claims are akin to a mental process because they are the type of calculations that could theoretically be carried out mentally, but are merely implemented using generic collection technology. The 2019 revised§ 101 guidance makes clear that the "mental process" category of abstract ideas does not only apply to steps actually carried out mentally; it also applies to the types of processes that could be carried out mentally, but are instead carried out using generic processing/collection technology.
Please see the following analogous types of data manipulations that courts have found to be abstract ideas (all taken from MPEP § 2106.04):
collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements “at least one processor” and “memory storing instructions” executable by the at least processor, which can be interpreted as a generic processor. The processing device and the programmable processor do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because it is merely using a generic processor as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites additional elements, “causing multiple sensors to send first sensor data via a network”, “wherein: the multiple sensors differ from each other; causing the multiple sensors to send the first sensor data includes causing the multiple sensors to generate the first sensor data; and the multiple sensors are individually configured to detect various biological conditions of an individual,” “receiving, via the network and from the multiple sensors, second sensor data,” and “in response to determining that at least one of the second measurements is outside of the range, triggering an alarm”, and “transmitting, via the network and to an electronic device, a command that causes the electronic device to automatically execute instructions to cause a physical component of the electronic device to output the alarm”; however, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because receiving data and indicating and outputting an alarm amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
The following are relevant examples of similar limitations which courts have found not to constitute improvements to computers or improvements to other technology or technical field:
Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TIJ Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.
It is further noted that merely collecting the necessary data using known, generic sensors (or other data gathering components) only amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity; see MPEP § 2106.05(g). Applicant's claimed invention does not affect/change the functionality of the technology being used. Rather, Applicant's claimed invention uses the claimed technology for its standard, well-known purpose, e.g. known sensors are used to collect data which they are known to be capable of collecting, known generic processing circuitry is used to perform data calculations/ comparisons, etc. Applicant's invention does not result in improved performance of the sensors, the processing circuitry, etc.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the claim recites additional elements “at least one processor”, “memory storing instructions”, “causing multiple sensors to send first sensor data via a network”, “wherein: the multiple sensors differ from each other; causing the multiple sensors to send the first sensor data includes causing the multiple sensors to generate the first sensor data; and the multiple sensors are individually configured to detect various biological conditions of an individual,” “receiving, via the network and from the multiple sensors, second sensor data,” and “in response to determining that at least one of the second measurements is outside of the range, triggering an alarm”, and “transmitting, via the network and to an electronic device, a command that causes the electronic device to automatically execute instructions to cause a physical component of the electronic device to output the alarm”. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because it is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). See MPEP 2106.05(d)II.
The courts have recognized electronic recordkeeping as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log). See MPEP 2106.05(d)II.
Para. [0112] of the instant application states that the output devices are well known in the art and need not be discussed at length.
Para. [0039] of US 20090182240 A1 and para. [0008] of US 20050131282 A1 show that “multiple sensors [that] differ from each other” that are “individually configured to detect various biological conditions of an individual” are routine and conventional.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to the instantly rejected dependent claims 10-15, these claims when analyzed as a whole are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to a judicial exception and/or do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a system.
To determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility, the claim is evaluated according to a stepwise process as described in MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.03-2106.04.
The instant claims are evaluated according to such analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, Claim 16 is directed towards a system.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the judicial exception relied upon by the instantly claimed invention is an abstract idea, and the limitation that sets forth or describes the abstract idea is: “generating, by the system and utilizing a signal processor and a specifically-trained neural network, a first processed signal from the first sensor data indicating first measurements of the vital sign measured during a first time period”, “generating, by the system and utilizing the signal processor and the specifically-trained neural network, a second processed signal from the second sensor data indicating second measurements of the movement of the individual measured during the first time period”, “determining that the second measurements are below a first threshold”; “determining, by the system and utilizing the first processed signal, a variance of the first measurements”; “confirming, while the vital sign sensor and the movement sensor are associated with the individual, that the first measurements are stable by: determining that the variance of the first measurements is below a variance threshold, and determining that a medication administered to the individual is inactive during the first time period based at least in part on determining that the first time period occurred greater than a first amount of time after the medication was administered”; “based on confirming that the first measurements are stable, generating a baseline of the vital sign based on the first measurements by calculating an arithmetic mean of the first measurements; generating a second threshold of the vital sign based on the baseline, the second threshold being a predetermined percentage of the baseline”; “generating, by the system and utilizing the signal processor and the specifically-trained neural network, a third processed signal from the third sensor data indicating third measurements of the vital sign measured during a second time period spaced in time from the first time period”; “determining that the fourth measurements are below the first threshold”; “determining that at least one of the third measurements is outside of a range bounded by the second threshold”.
The reason that the above limitations are abstract idea is because they are directed to mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical concepts.
The steps of data collection and usage carried out in Applicant's claims are akin to a mental process because they are the type of calculations that could theoretically be carried out mentally, but are merely implemented using generic collection technology. The 2019 revised§ 101 guidance makes clear that the "mental process" category of abstract ideas does not only apply to steps actually carried out mentally; it also applies to the types of processes that could be carried out mentally, but are instead carried out using generic processing/collection technology.
Please see the following analogous types of data manipulations that courts have found to be abstract ideas (all taken from MPEP § 2106.04):
collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements “at least one processor” and “memory storing instructions” executable by the at least processor, which can be interpreted as a generic processor. The processing device and the programmable processor do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because it is merely using a generic processor as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites additional elements, “a vital sign sensor”, “a movement sensor”, “an electronic device configured to output an alert”, “causing the vital sign sensor to generate first sensor data and to send the first sensor data via a network”, “causing the movement sensor to generate second sensor data and to send the second sensor data via the network”, “receiving, via the network and from the vital sign sensor, third sensor data”, “receiving, via the network and from the movement sensor, fourth sensor data indicating fourth measurements of the movement measured during the second time period”, and “in response to determining that at least one of the third measurements is outside of the range, transmitting, via the network and to the electronic device, a command with an instruction to output an alarm identifying the individual, wherein the instruction causes the electronic device to automatically execute instructions to cause a physical component of the electronic device to output the alarm”; however, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because receiving data and indicating an alarm amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
The following are relevant examples of similar limitations which courts have found not to constitute improvements to computers or improvements to other technology or technical field:
Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TIJ Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.
It is further noted that merely collecting the necessary data using known, generic sensors (or other data gathering components) only amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity; see MPEP § 2106.05(g). Applicant's claimed invention does not affect/change the functionality of the technology being used. Rather, Applicant's claimed invention uses the claimed technology for its standard, well-known purpose, e.g. known sensors are used to collect data which they are known to be capable of collecting, known generic processing circuitry is used to perform data calculations/ comparisons, etc. Applicant's invention does not result in improved performance of the sensors, the processing circuitry, etc.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the claim recites additional elements “at least one processor”, “memory storing instructions”, “a vital sign sensor”, “a movement sensor”, “an electronic device configured to output an alert”, “causing the vital sign sensor to generate first sensor data and to send the first sensor data via a network”, “causing the movement sensor to generate second sensor data and to send the second sensor data via the network”, “receiving, via the network and from the vital sign sensor, third sensor data”, “receiving, via the network and from the movement sensor, fourth sensor data indicating fourth measurements of the movement measured during the second time period”, and “in response to determining that at least one of the third measurements is outside of the range, transmitting, via the network and to the electronic device, a command with an instruction to output an alarm identifying the individual, wherein the instruction causes the electronic device to automatically execute instructions to cause a physical component of the electronic device to output the alarm”. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because it is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). See MPEP 2106.05(d)II.
The courts have recognized electronic recordkeeping as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log). See MPEP 2106.05(d)II.
Para. [0112] of the instant application states that the output devices are well known in the art and need not be discussed at length.
Para. [0039] of US 20090182240 A1 and para. [0008] of US 20050131282 A1 show that “multiple sensors [that] differ from each other” that are “individually configured to detect various biological conditions of an individual” are routine and conventional.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to the instantly rejected dependent claims 17-19, these claims when analyzed as a whole are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to a judicial exception and/or do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VYNN V HUH whose telephone number is (571)272-4684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached on (571) 270-5213. 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.
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/V.V.H./
Vynn Huh, July 28, 2026
Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights