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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 November 12, 2025 has been entered. This Office Action is responsive to the Reply to Office Action filed November 12, 2025. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 10, 13, 15, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, and 26, and the cancellation of claims 1, 6, 9, and 14. Claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-13, and 15-27 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 November 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-13, and 15-27 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 101, Applicant argues that the human mind cannot in real time view thermal energy nor perform calculations. Applicant further argues that the claims do integrate any abstract idea into a practical application because Applicant’s method/systems serve as an improvement to the technological field. Moreover, Applicant argues that as indicated in the MPEP (see MPEP 2106.04(II)(a)), a claim does not 'recite' a mental process if it merely 'involves' a mental process, and as such, the subject matter of claim 15 is related to a real-time patient monitoring system that is not a mental process. Applicant further argues the claimed subject matter recites steps including receiving imaging data from a thermal camera, filtering the imaging data using different filters, determining a safe zone around a patient, determining that the patient has exited the safe zone, triggering an alarm before the patient completes a future event, transmitting a notification associated with the triggered alarm to a user device associated with an additional person before the patient completes the future event, and determining whether the additional person has entered or exited a frame of the images, among other elements, and therefore the claimed subject matter may 'involve' a mental process, such as patient observation, but the subject matter of each claim, viewed as a whole, do not 'recite' mental processes. Furthermore, Applicant argues that even if the claims recite a judicial exception, the claims integrate that exception into a practical application, as even though the specification does not explicitly set forth the purported improvement, it describes the invention in a manner such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)). The Examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments.
The claims involve mental processes, such as the determining steps as recited in method claim 22, and the claims as a whole merely recite patient monitoring by making determinations based upon images obtained by a thermal camera, triggering an alarm/transmitting a notification associated with the triggered alarm before a future event occurs, and determining if an additional person/caregiver has entered an image frame. The triggering of an alarm and the transmittance of a notification associated with a triggered alarm pertains to mere extra-solutional activity and not an improvement or practical application. Moreover, the argument that the calculation is performed in “real-time”, as recited in the preamble of the independent claims, is not a persuasive argument that the calculation could not be performed mentally, as nothing in the claims suggest that a skilled artisan would not be able to practically perform the identified judicial exception mentally or using pen/paper. Moreover, none of the method steps recite that anything is performed in real time, such that “real time” as recited in the preamble is merely a name or label put on the method. Additionally, the argument that the human mind cannot in real time view thermal energy, this argument is not persuasive because viewing thermal energy was not identified as part of the judicial exception present in the claims. Rather, using a thermal camera to obtain imaging data is merely extra-solutional activity and does not integrate the claims into a practical application and/or recite significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Mere Data Gathering”. In addition, the alleged technological improvement that Applicant argues is present in the claims lies within the abstract idea itself (i.e., an alleged better calculation/algorithm that allegedly reduces the number of false positives related to a patient leaving an area, triggers an alert in anticipation of a future event being completed but before the future event is created, transmits a notification associated with the alert to a user device associated with an additional person before the future event is completed, and determines whether the additional person has entered or exited a frame of the imaging data). An alleged improved calculation/algorithm that allegedly improves the functioning of a computer or an improvement to the technical field is still a calculation nonetheless, and would not be patent eligible. Moreover, the judicial exception cannot provide the technological improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101 still stands. See 35 U.S.C. 101 Rejection below.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-20, 23 & 25-27 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites “determining, based at least in part on a comparison of the one or more second thermal images filtered using the first filter and the one or more second images filtered using the second filter” [emphasis added] at lines 24-27, “wherein the comparison of the one or more second images filtered using the first filter and the one or more second images filtered using the second filter” [emphasis added] at lines 30-32, and “determining, based on a comparison of the one or more third images using the first filter and the one or more third images filtered using the second filter, whether the additional person has entered or exited a frame of the one or more third images” [emphasis added] at lines 48-52. At lines 1-4 of claim 15, it is recited that the system comprises a thermal camera configured to capture imaging data including one or more first thermal images, one or more second thermal images, and one or more third thermal images, therefore at the above-mentioned portions of claim 15, it is unclear whether the recited “one or more second images” and “one or more third images” is referring to the one or more second images and one or more third images introduced in the beginning of the claim, or different sets of “one or more second images” and “one or more third images”, respectively. The Examiner respectfully requests clarification. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the “one or more second images” and “one or more third images” are referring to the one or more second thermal images and the one or more third thermal images, respectively.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the future event comprises one of exiting a bed, exiting a chair, leaving a region within the frame while staying in the frame of the one or more second thermal images, or leaving the frame of the one or more second thermal images” [emphasis added]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the frame” with respect to the one or more second thermal images in the claim, as claim 15, which claim 23 depends upon, provides antecedence only for the one or more third images having a frame, and therefore it is unclear as to what frame the claim is referring (i.e., the frame of the one or more third images or a frame of the one or more second images?). For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the future event comprises one of exiting a bed, exiting a chair, leaving a region within a frame while staying in a frame of the one or more second thermal images, or leaving a frame of the one or more second thermal images. Claim 25 is similarly rejected and interpreted with respect to its dependence on claim 22.
Claim 26 recites “wherein the plurality of bins are incremented based on the quantization of each pixel in the region” [emphasis added] at lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the quantization” and as such, it is unclear as to what quantization the claim is referring. The Examiner suggests amending lines 8-9 of claim 26 to recite --wherein the plurality of bins are incremented based on quantization of each pixel in the region--. Claim 27 is similarly rejected.
Dependent claims are similarly rejected as their base claim.
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 2-5, 7-8, 10-13 & 15-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention
is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both
individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A
streamlined analysis of claim 22 follows.
Regarding claim 22, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including determining a safe zone
around a patient based at least in part on an analysis of one or more first images received from a camera, determining that the patient has exited the safe zone based at least in part on an analysis of one or more second images received from the camera, and determining, based on a comparison of one or more third images filtered using a first filter and a second filter, whether an additional
person has entered or exited a frame of the one or more third images. Thus, the claim is directed to a
process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The
steps of determining a safe zone around a patient based at least in part on an analysis of one or more first images received from a camera, determining that the patient has exited the safe zone based at least in part on an analysis of one or more second images received from the camera, and determining, based on a comparison of one or more third images filtered using a first filter and a second filter, whether an additional person has entered or exited a frame of the one or more third images set forth judicial exceptions. These steps describe concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an
additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial
exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 22 recites
triggering an alarm in response to the determination that the patient has exited the safe zone wherein
the alarm is triggered before the patient has completed a future event, and transmitting a notification associated with the triggered alarm to a user device associated with an additional person, wherein the notification associated with the triggered alarm is transmitted to the user device associated with the additional person before the patient completes the future event, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The triggering of an alarm and the transmitting of a notification do not provide improvements to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the triggered alarm or transmitted notification, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of
elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception.
Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of receiving imaging data from a camera
comprising one or more first images, one or more second images, and one or more third images, and filtering the imaging data using a first filter and a second filter. The receiving and filtering steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the receiving and filtering steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful
limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike
the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but
taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an
improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to
transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole
does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-
statutory subject matter.
Regarding claims 15 & 21, the device recited in each claim is a generic device comprising generic
components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited thermal camera is a generic sensor
configured to perform pre-solutional data gathering activity and the processing unit is configured to
perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a
tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as
they generally recite method steps pertaining to data gathering and data processing. The receiving and
filtering steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when
considered in combination with the dependent claims.
EXAMINER’S NOTE
The following is a list of prior art relevant to Applicant’s invention:
US Patent Application Publication 2019/0371455 (see par 0064, disclosing a camera that detects different events such as sitting up, bed leaving, or falling);
US Patent Application Publication 2018/0068179 (see par 0077, 0091, 0117, wherein thermal images are used for patient detection in a hospital room setting);
US Patent Application Publication 2018/0020924 (see par 0050, wherein thermal images are used for patient detection in a hospital room setting);
US Patent Application Publication 2017/0358195 (see par 0011-0013, 0028, 0031-0034, 0036-0037, figs. 1-3, disclosing zones used to track a patient in a room using cameras, wherein the cameras are configured to detect actions and activities in the zones, and wherein notifications can be sent to caregivers pertaining to the actions/activities);
US Patent 9,041,810 (see figs. 4A-4B, 6A-6D, 7A-7B, 8A-8B, 9A-9E, 12A-12B, Col. 13, lines 20-67 – Col. 14, lines 1-7, Col. 19, lines 22 – 50, disclosing a patient fall prediction system using video/camera surveillance, wherein bounding boxes are used to determine zones of a patient that indicate whether or not a patient is at risk of falling, and further wherein distinction is made between different patient movements to prevent the alert of false alarms).
Regarding claims 15-20, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, either alone or in combination, a comparison of one or more subsequent images filtered using a first filter and a second filter to identify a decay of residual heat after a patient has exited a safe zone, in combination with the other claimed elements or steps.
Regarding claims 2-5, 7-8 & 21, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, either alone or in combination, a comparison of one or more subsequent images filtered using a first filter and a second filter to identify a decay of residual heat after a patient has exited a safe zone, in combination with the other claimed elements or steps.
Further regarding claim 8, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, either alone or in combination, an enable gesture that is a first movement from bottom-to-top of a frame of one or more initial images, and a disable gesture that is a second movement from top-to- bottom of a frame of the one or more subsequent images, in combination with the other claimed elements or steps.
Regarding claims 10-13 & 22, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, either alone or in combination, determining that an additional person has entered a frame of an image when the number of hot pixels in the frame of one or more subsequent images filtered using a first filter is greater than the number of hot pixels in the portion of the one or more subsequent images filtered using the second filter, and determining that an additional person is determined to have exited the frame when the number of hot pixels in the portion of the frame of the one or more subsequent images filtered using the second filter is greater than the number of hot pixels in the portion of the frame of the one or more subsequent images filtered using the first filter, in combination with the other claimed elements or steps.
Regarding claims 26-27, none of the prior art teaches or suggests, either alone or in combination, filtering a raw histogram through a first filter to create a fast histogram and filtering the raw histogram through the second filter to create a slow histogram, in combination with the other claimed elements or steps.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Destiny J Cruickshank whose telephone number is (571)270-0187. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/D.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights