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 .
This communication is in response to the amendment received on 05/22/2025. Claims 1-6 and 11-20 remain pending in this application.
The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 19-20, for the computer program product is non-transitory, has been withdrawn in light of Remarks, page 8, lines 1-13.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-16 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 17-18 are drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 19-20 are drawn to a computer program product (see the rejection above).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1, 17 and 19 have been amended and provided below with markings separating abstract elements from the additional limitations, wherein the bolded represents the additional limitations beyond abstract idea, and remaining limitations are directed to the abstract idea as discussed below:
“monitoring a health status of a first user from a wearable device,
wherein the health status is based on a set of one or more health metrics captured by the wearable device, wherein the set of one or more health metrics include an oxygen measurement of the first user, and wherein the health status is measured by an oxygen sensor of the wearable device, while the wearable device is worn by the first user;
determining, based on a global positioning system (GPS) sensor measurement of a client device and further based on an indication that the client device scanned a digital boarding pass, that the first user is participating in a travel event that is related to a travel vehicle;
creating, based on determining that the first user is participating in the travel event related to the travel vehicle, an ad-hoc network between the client device, wearable device, and the travel vehicle;
detecting, based on the health status, a potential health concern of the first user related to the oxygen measurement; and
performing, in response to the potential health concern and based on the travel event, an intervention action related to the health status, wherein the intervention action includes issuing, over the ad-hoc network, a command to a deployable oxygen mask of the travel vehicle to deploy an oxygen mask at a location of the first user within the travel vehicle”
These limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, with a recitation of generic computing devices (eg. A wearable device for both claims 1, 17 and 19, a memory and a processor for claim 17, one or more computer readable storage media for claim 19). This is a method of managing interactions between people, such as user following rules and instructions. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor and generic wearable device does not take the claims out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 2-6, 11-16, 18 and 20 are ultimately dependent from claims 1, 17, 19 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 17, 19. Therefore, claims 2-6, 11-16, 18 and 20 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2-6, 11-16, 18 and 20 describe a further limitation regarding the basis for determining potential health concern for the user and performing an intervention. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claims 1, 17, 19, without adding significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims recite the additional elements that are shown in bolded style above. These elements are directed to hardware or software elements, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular field or technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)).
The processor in the claim steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining health concern based on obtained data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Claims 1, 17 and 19 have been amended to recite “wherein the intervention action includes issuing, over the ad-hoc network, a command to a deployable oxygen mask of the travel vehicle to deploy an oxygen mask at a location of the first user within the travel vehicle”, which corresponds to an insignificant application (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform determining and detecting steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
In addition, the claims recite “monitoring a health status of a first user from a wearable device…detecting, based on the health status, a potential health concern for the first user” and these features are well-understood, routine and conventional activities in the field, as evidenced by the article “Wearable Health Devices in Health Care: Narrative Systematic Review”, by Lin Lu et al. (hereinafter Lu), published in JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth in 2020. In particular, Lu discloses “With the rise of mobile medicine, the development of new technologies such as smart sensing, and the popularization of personalized health concepts, the field of smart wearable devices has developed rapidly in recent years. Among them, medical wearable devices have become one of the most promising fields. These intelligent devices not only assist people in pursuing a healthier lifestyle but also provide a constant stream of health care data for disease diagnosis and treatment by actively recording physiological parameters and tracking metabolic status. Therefore, wearable medical devices have the potential to become a mainstay of the future mobile medical market.” on page 1, in abstract, under Background. Lu also teaches “The emergence of inexpensive wearable devices has enabled people to monitor heart rate, pulse, oxygen saturation, and physical activity continuously, as well as audio to detect cough, breath sounds, and other characteristics. These signals can be used in predictive analyses to detect early deterioration of lung function.” On page 5, lines 9-13-Pulmonary Diseases.
Accordingly, using wearable devices to determine health concern of the user is a well-understood, routine and conventional activity known in the industry and claims are directed to mere instruction to apply an exception.
Therefore, claims 1-6 and 11-20 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/22/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed below in the order in which they appear.
Argument 1-abstract idea: Applicant argues that claims are not directed to an abstract idea of “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people”, since they are directed to managing devices provide emergency health assistance to users during travel events.
In response, Examiner submits that claim limitations (monitoring a health status of a first user …,; determining…that the first user is participating in a travel event that is related to a travel vehicle;…detecting, based on the health status, a potential health concern of the first user related to the oxygen measurement; and performing, in response to the potential health concern and based on the travel event, an intervention action related to the health status…) correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, with a recitation of generic computing devices (eg. A wearable device for both claims 1, 17 and 19, a memory and a processor for claim 17, one or more computer readable storage media for claim 19). This is a method of managing interactions between people, such as user following rules and instructions. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor and generic wearable device does not take the claims out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping.
Argument 2-practical application: Applicant argues that claims 1, 17 and 19 are directed to non-preemptive, specific, application and should not be directed to a judicial exception.
In response, Examiner submits that the MPEP recites “While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B). Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1150, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379, 115 USPQ2d 1152, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2015). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10-11 n.14 (1981) ("We rejected in Flook the argument that because all possible uses of the mathematical formula were not pre-empted, the claim should be eligible for patent protection"). See also Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics, 839 F.3d at 1150, 120 USPQ2d at 1483; FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1320-21, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Sequenom, 788 F.3d at 1379, 115 USPQ2d at 1158. Several Federal Circuit decisions, however, have noted the absence of preemption when finding claims eligible under the Alice/Mayo test. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102-03 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility, LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-52, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016)” in §2106.04.
Examiner submits that claim limitations (monitoring a health status of a first user …,; determining…that the first user is participating in a travel event that is related to a travel vehicle;…detecting, based on the health status, a potential health concern of the first user related to the oxygen measurement; and performing, in response to the potential health concern and based on the travel event, an intervention action related to the health status…) correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, with a recitation of generic computing devices (eg. A wearable device for both claims 1, 17 and 19, a memory and a processor for claim 17, one or more computer readable storage media for claim 19). This is a method of managing interactions between people, such as user following rules and instructions.
Argument 3-35 USC 103 rejection: Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/22/2025, with respect to 35 USC 103 rejection of claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 103 rejection of claim has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILEK B COBANOGLU whose telephone number is (571)272-8295. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 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, Obeid Mamon can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/DILEK B COBANOGLU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights