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 .
Applicant filed a response dated 5/25/2026 in which claims 1, 13, and 17 have been amended, claims 5-6 have been canceled. Thus, the claims 1-4 and 7-20 are pending in the application.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/25/2026 has been entered.
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 1-4 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of route-guidance information for the patient without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 recites a series of steps, e.g., receiving, via a graphical user interface, patient-specific input, wherein the input comprises information related to a patient healthcare event and at least one sensitivity trigger associated with said healthcare event; receiving, via the graphical user interface, provider-specific input, wherein the input comprises information related to a facility hosting said healthcare event and at least one sensitivity trigger within the facility; and processing, by a processer, the patient-specific input and the provider-specific input to determine matched trigger and their corresponding facility locations; and generating and rendering, by the processor, an adaptive facility trigger map, wherein the adaptive facility trigger map calculates a geo-positionally-tracked route through the facility that minimizes patient exposure to the matched triggers from facility entrance to examination and exit by excluding route segments associated with the matched triggers, and further recalculates the route in real time based on a current location of the patient within the facility and proximity of the patient to one or more of the matched triggers, wherein the matched triggers are displayed as severity-coded interactive visual indicators, the severity denoted by at least one of a color code or a symbol code, and wherein interaction with one of the interactive visual indicators provides at least one of information related to the matched trigger, training related to the matched trigger, or route-guidance information for the patient. These limitations (except italicized limitations) describe the abstract idea of route-guidance information for the patient, which corresponds to a certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim 1 recites an additional elements of a graphical user interface and a processor which do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a graphical user interface and a processor result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a graphical user interface and a processor are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention by applying the exception using a generic computer element (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional elements of a graphical user interface and a processor are recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these elements provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be presented for other independent claim 13 and hence the claim 13 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-4, 7-12, and 14-16 further define the abstract idea that is present in the independent claims 1 and 13, thus correspond to a certain method of organizing human activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 1-4 and 7-16 are not patent-eligible.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of route-guidance information for the patient without significantly more.
Claim 17 is directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 17 describes a system comprising: a trigger mapping unit: a processor; a memory element coupled to the processor; said memory element with encoded instructions, when implemented by the processor, cause the system to: receive an input for a patient, wherein the input comprises information related to a patient healthcare event and at least one sensitivity trigger associated with said healthcare event; receive an input from a treatment provider, wherein the input comprises information related to a facility hosting said healthcare event and at least one sensitivity trigger within the facility; and generate and rend, by the processor, an adaptive facility trigger map, wherein the adaptive facility map calculates a geo-positionally-tracked route through the facility that minimizes patient exposure to the matched triggers from facility entrance to examination and exit by excluding route segments associated with the matched triggers, and further recalculates the route in real time based on a current location of the patient within the facility and proximity of the patient to one or more of the matched triggers, wherein the matched triggers are displayed as severity-coded interactive visual indicators, the severity denoted by at least one of a color code or a symbol code, and wherein interaction with one or the interactive visual indicators provides at least one of information related to the matched trigger, training related to the matched trigger, or route-guidance information for the patient. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitation) describe the abstract idea of route-guidance information for the patient, which correspond to a certain methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of a trigger mapping unit, a processor, a memory element, encoded instructions, and the system do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 17 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a trigger mapping unit, a processor, a memory element, encoded instructions, and the system result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a trigger mapping unit, a processor, a memory element, encoded instructions, and the system are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention by applying the exception using a generic computer element (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 17 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 17 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional elements of a trigger mapping unit, a processor, a memory element, encoded instructions, and the system are recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these elements provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 17 is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 18-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in the independent claim 17, thus correspond to a certain method of organizing human activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 17-20 are not patent-eligible.
Response to Arguments
Examiner withdraws 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-20 in view of amendment/argument.
Applicant's arguments filed dated 5/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims are not directed to a judicial exception. The amended claims require continuous geo-positional tracking, environmental trigger-state evolution, trigger-proximity processing, adaptive route-segment exclusion, and real-time recalculation of navigation pathways. These operations are not practically performable in the human mind and are not reducible to mere observation or evaluation. Applicant also states that the claims are not directed to mere information presentation or a mental process.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that at Step 2A, Prong One, the claim is initially considered in the absence of additional elements to determine if the claim recites an abstract idea. The additional elements are then further considered to determine if the additional elements restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The additional elements are then further considered under Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B to determine if the additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to add significantly more. In this case, under Step 2A, Prong One, it was determined that the claim recites an abstract idea of route-guidance information for the patient and this corresponds to a certain methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. The features such as continuous geo-tracking, environmental trigger-state evolution, trigger-proximity processing, adaptive route-segment exclusion, and real-time recalculation of navigation pathways are recited at a high level of generality and there is no specific structure, except a processor, is recited in the claim to perform these functions. The processor is merely present as a tool to apply the abstract idea and does not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong One of the analysis, the claim recites an abstract idea. The additional elements of a processer is further considered in more detail under Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding Thales Visionix decision, Examiner notes that the claimed invention does not present any technical improvements similar to what is claimed in Thales Visionix decision. The additional element of a processor is recited at a high level of generality in that it simply amounts to applying the abstract idea and thus does not limit the claim from reciting an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One.
Applicant then cited SRI International, Inc., McRO, Inc., SiRF Technology, Inc., Enfish and DDR Holdings, LLC decisions, Examiner does not find the arguments persuasive as the claim clearly recites an abstract idea and the additional elements do not provide any technical improvements.
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, Applicant states that the amended claims recite continuous geo-positional tracking within a healthcare environment, processor-based matching of patient-specific trigger conditions to facility-specific trigger locations, dynamic exclusion of route segments associated with matched environmental trigger conditions, real-time recalculation of navigation pathways based upon patient movement and trigger-proximity conditions, and adaptive rendering integrated directedly with dynamically recalculated route-generation behavior. Taken together, these limitations define a closed-loop adaptive environmental navigation architecture.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that continuous geo-positional tracking, matching of patient-specific trigger conditions to facility-specific trigger locations, dynamic exclusion of route segments, real-time calculation of navigation pathways, and adaptive rendering are implemented with the use of a processor which is recited at a high level of generality. There is no specific technical details as to how these steps are carried out. Implementing these steps by a processor is nothing but applying by a processor which does not clearly point to technical improvement, if there are any. The additional elements thus do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and thus these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to Step 2B, Applicant’s arguments regarding the claims recite an inventive concept are not persuasive for the same reason as presented above. It is not clear which limitation represents an inventive concept. An inventive concept “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.” Genetic Techs. V. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding or decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract. Instead, an “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Although, the courts often evaluate consideration such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. As made clear by the courts, the “’novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights