DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to RCE filed on 07/17/2025 in which claims 1, 6-12, 24-26, 32, 35, 37-38, 45, 50, 53-54, and 56 are presented for examination; Claims 1 and 45 have been amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/17/2025 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 causing are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes, it’s a method(process).
Step 2a Prong 1 (judicial exception)
Step 2A (1): “Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? Yes , the claim comes under mental processes.
Claim 1 recites:
“A method including: transmitting, via an emitter, one or both of electromagnetic radiation and acoustic radiation; receiving, via a sensor, , reflections of one or both of the electromagnetic radiation and acoustic radiation; determining, from the data, one or more physical objects contained in the living space; generating via the sensor based on the reflections of one or both of the electromagnetic radiation and the acoustic radiation, data associated with a living space of a resident; digitally mapping by a control system based on the data, one or more physical objects contained in the living space; analyzing by the control system, the data to identify one or more hazards in the living space ; determining by the control system, a hazard score for each of the one or more identified hazards in the living space, the hazard score determined from a machine learning algorithm updating underlying hazard scores associated with each of the one or more identified hazards using historical data associated with the resident; determining by the control system, a likelihood of occurrence of harm for each of the one or more identified hazards in the living space; and determining by the control system a risk score for the living space based at least in part on each of the respective hazard scores of the identified one or more identified hazards and each of the respective likelihoods of occurrence of harm for the one or more identified hazards, the risk score being indicative of how hazardous the living space is to the resident; generating by the control system , one or more recommendations for reducing the risk score for the living space; generating, automatically by the control system based on access to an external database, a cost associated with each of the one or more recommendations; determining , by the control system, an estimated impact on the risk score associated with each of the one or more recommendations; causing presentation, by the control system via an electronic display device, indications of the one or more recommendations and the cost associated with each of the one or more recommendations; receiving user input selecting a first subset of the one or more recommendations; causing presentation, by the control system via an electronic display device, a simulated impact on the risk score based on the selecting the first subset of the one or more recommendations; wherein the first subset of the one or more recommendations includes moving a first physical object of the one or more physical objects from an old location to a new location; generating by the control system, a virtual representation of the living space including the one or more physical objects contained in the living space; generating, by the control system, an animation of the first physical object of the one or more physical objects moving from the old location to the new location; generating, by the control system, a graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface includes the virtual representation of the living space including the animation of the first physical object of the one or more physical objects moving from the old location to the new location and an updated simulated risk score based on the first subset of the one or more recommendations; and causing presentation, by a control system, via the electronic display device, of the graphical user interface”
All the limitations above are abstract idea related to the mental process (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)) with the exception of bold and underlined limitations. Claim language pertains to gather data of a resident’s living space and determine the chances of getting harm based on the identified hazards(obstacles, e.g. furniture). A score can be assigned to the obstacles in the living space to indicate the level of harm a person could get while being there. Recommendations are being provided to reduce the risk score (e.g. reducing physical size of object ) and their impact is estimated , which can be done mentally or on paper (e.g. writing size on paper) and user can decide /select from the recommendations. Different recommendations are compared to see estimated impact(the one being less hazardous from other). Also, the impact simulation by resizing or reducing objects can be done using pen or paper. In addition, the representation of object from old location to new location can be done by drawing the real world objects on paper using pen. The cost of any recommendation associated with hazard can be easily indicated and presented using paper or mentally. Any kind of animation can merely be just drawing using paper and pen.
Step 2A(2): Prong Two: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. NO
The claim does recite following additional elements; however they don’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. Regarding claim limitations:
transmitting, via an emitter(Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) )
electromagnetic radiation and acoustic radiation (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
receiving from a sensor(Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) )
digitally mapping by a control system (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
generating, automatically by the control system(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
external database(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
control system(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
electronic display device(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
animation(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
sensor(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
control system(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
machine learning algorithm(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
electronic display device(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
virtual representation(Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
graphical user interface (Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Step 2B: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception? NO
As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Regarding the claim limitations:
“ receiving from a sensor” the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information”); See, MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)
transmitting, via an emitter the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information”); See, MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Dependent Claims 6-10, 12 and 38 further defines the abstract idea, without any additional limitations.
Dependent Claims 11, 24-26, 35, 37, further narrows the abstract idea defined in claim 1. In addition , the additional elements are “sensor”, infrared cameras”, acoustics sensors”, RF sensors, barometers, “animation”, graphical user interface”, augmented reality” “electronic health record”, “virtual representation”.
Under step 2A, prong two, the above recited devices(sensors. Microphones, cameras, speakers) don’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
(claim 32) “causing the one or more recommendations to be sent to an electronic device; receiving implementation feedback via the electronic device, the implementation feedback associated with an implementation status for each of the one or more recommendations for reducing the risk score; and generating a report, the report including the risk score, the one or more recommendations for reducing the risk score for the living space, the implementation status for each of the one or more recommendations for reducing the risk score, a revised risk score that is based at least in part on the risk score and the implementations status of each of the one or more recommendations, at least a portion of the resident profile, at least a portion of a virtual model of the living space, or any combination thereof.”
(further defines the abstract idea as report can be generated according to feedback provided and risk score can be reduced accordingly, or recommendations can be provided to reduce risk score in living space.
Under step 2A, prong two, the above recited virtual model don’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding limitations :
recommendations to be sent to an electronic device(Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP2106.05(g)
receiving implementation feedback via the electronic device(Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP2106.05(g)
Step 2B: evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception? NO
As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Regarding the claim limitation:
“recommendations to be sent to an electronic device” the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information”); See, MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)
receiving implementation feedback via the electronic device the courts have recognized the computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (“i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information”); See, MPEP 2106.05 (d)(II)
Regarding claim 45 , it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1.
Dependent claims 50, 53-54, and 56 further narrows the abstract idea defined in claim 45. In addition , the additional elements are “machine-readable instructions” , “virtual representation”, “virtual items”, “control system”, “virtual walkways”, “virtual light fixtures”, “virtual hardwood floors”, “virtual beds”, “virtual objects”.
Under step 2A, prong two, the above recited devices(sensors. Microphones, cameras, speakers) don’t integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception as merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f).
As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 6-12, 24-26, 32-, 35, 37-38, 45, 50, 53-54, and 56 are allowed over prior art. Substantially all the limitations can be addressed singularly; however to reach the claimed invention as whole would be impermissible hindsight. MPEP, 2142, “To reach a proper determination under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner must step backward in time and into the shoes worn by the hypothetical "person of ordinary skill in the art". That time is "before the effective filing date of the claimed invention" for 35 U.S.C. 103 or "at the time the invention was made" for pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103. In view of all factual information, the examiner must then make a determination whether the claimed invention "as a whole" would have been obvious at that time to a hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art. Knowledge of applicant’s disclosure must be put aside in reaching this determination, yet kept in mind in order to determine the "differences," conduct the search, and evaluate the "subject matter as a whole" of the invention. The tendency to resort to "hindsight" based upon applicant's disclosure is often difficult to avoid due to the very nature of the examination process. However, impermissible hindsight must be avoided and the legal conclusion must be reached on the basis of the facts gleaned from the prior art.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Prior ART
Prior art is withdrawn in view of claim amendments, and applicant’s argument. For further information, see allowable subject matter section above.
35 U.S.C 101
Remarks, Pg. 1-2, applicant contends: “instead, others would only infringe the claim by practicing each and every limitation of Applicant's claims, which require the use of very specific technology that is deeply rooted in computer technology, electromagnetic/acoustic ranging technology, computer-generated graphics, etc. Accordingly, such technology, which has been identified by the Office Action as not being abstract, would be required to infringe Applicant's claims, just as intended by 35 U.S.C. § 101, and is not simply insignificant post-solution activity or the words "apply it. Applicant submits that Applicant's independent claims 1 - 45, and by extension Applicant's dependent claims, recite patent eligible subject matter.”
The applicant seems to argue intentions behind the 35 U.S.C 101, and further makes conclusory statement that technologies recited in the claim language are not “simply insignificant post-solution activity or the words "apply it." The examiner have provided detailed analysis with regard to each of technical elements presented in the claims; mainly the technical features mentioned in the claims or specification are being generically used. The claims or the specification does not provide any details, that provides Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). For example, one of the newly added technical feature is animation of the object moving from old location to new location. The specification states:
“[0068] In some implementations, the user device202 can display one of the recommendations as an animation involving one or more moving virtual objects. For example, if a recommendation involves moving a furniture from one location to another, the user device 202 can show a virtual item of furniture changing locations. Other examples of moving recommendations include showing a virtual rug moving from one location to another, showing a virtual object moving from one location to another, etc.
[0069] In some implementations, the user device202 can display the one of the recommendations as an animation involving a resizing of virtual objects or virtual walkways. For example, the animation can include a widening of a virtual walkway in the virtual representation of the living space, a narrowing of a virtual walkway in the virtual representation of the living space, a resizing of a virtual object in the virtual representation of the living space, a widening of a virtual doorway in the virtual representation of the living space, a narrowing of the virtual doorway in the virtual representation of the living space, or any combination thereof. “
As can be seen from above disclosure, the animation technology is merely being applied, rather than providing any details as to how the objects are being animated, and how the animated technology is being improved. Please note that any kind of animation can merely be just drawing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUMA WASEEM whose telephone number is (571)272-1316. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday(9:00am - 5:00 pm) EST.
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, Jason B. Dunham can be reached on (571) 272-8109. 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.
/HUMA WASEEM/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JASON B DUNHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3686