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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to the reply received 10/03/2025.
Claims 1, 3, 11, 13 were amended 10/03/2025.
Claims 2, 12, 14 were canceled 10/03/2025.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13 and 15-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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, 3, 5-11, 13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3, 5-11, 13 and 15-20 are drawn to a method and a device which are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 1 recites monitoring tracks comprising: maintaining a target list, having a target track, recording a first track by a first monitoring application installed, comparing a similarity between the first track and the target track by the first monitoring application to generate a comparison result; generating a reference track by the first monitoring application according to the first track when the comparison result indicates that the first track matches the target track; and uploading the reference track, being de-identified, by the first monitoring application wherein is associated with a first ID code, when the comparison result indicates that the first track matches the target track, the first monitoring application uploads the first ID code, wherein the first ID code is de-identified by the first monitoring application before being uploaded.
Independent claim 11 recites receiving a target track; and a first monitoring application; wherein the first monitoring application records a first track and compares a similarity between the first track and the target track to generate a comparison result, wherein a reference track is generated by the first monitoring application according to the first track when the comparison result indicates that the first track matches the a target track and the first monitoring application uploads the reference track which is de-identified, wherein is associated with a first ID code, the first ID code is uploaded by the first monitoring application when the comparison result indicates that the first track matches the target track, wherein the first monitoring application is installed, the first ID code is de-identified by the first monitoring application before being uploaded.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity by users tracking users in a population, as reflected in the specification, which states that “In addition, the method of track monitoring method and the track monitoring module provided by the present invention can also provide a population distribution map around the mobile device of the user, thereby helping the user to evaluate the risk in a specific area.” (see: specification paragraph 46). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because they address “Therefore, there is currently a need for a new track monitoring method and module for tracking relevant footprints and compiling information about relevant footprints to the public, so that the public can understand the risk of infection in a specific area (see: specification paragraph 4). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).”
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “monitoring server” and “first mobile device”, “mobile device”, “track monitoring device”, “transmission unit”, “processor” are recited at a high level of generality (e.g., that the recording and comparing is performed using generic computer components with instructions are executed to perform the claimed limitations). Such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Hence, the 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. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, Figure 2 and
Paragraph 24, where “The track monitoring module 10a, the track monitoring module 10b, and the track monitoring module 10c can be respectively wirelessly connected to the monitoring server 12, and then the monitoring server 12 can be coupled to the cloud network 14. Taking the track monitoring module 10a as an example, the track monitoring module 10a may have a transmission unit 100a and a processor 102a. The transmission unit 100a may be used to transmit various data, and the processor 102a may perform logical functions. Of course, the track monitoring module 10a may also include other elements, such as a screen or a user interface, which is not limited in this embodiment. In one example, the track monitoring module 10a can be regarded as a mobile device, such as a mobile device or a part of the mobile device. In addition, this embodiment does not limit the means by which the track monitoring module 10a is connected to the monitoring server 12. For example, when the track monitoring module 10a is the mobile device, the track monitoring module 10a can be wirelessly connected to the monitoring server 12 through 4G, 5G, or Wi-Fi technologies.”
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with route, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 3, 5-10, 13, and 15-20 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 3 further recites “a second mobile device”, claim 8 further recites a “third mobile device” which are recited generically in the specification paragraphs 7 and 10 and do not offer a practical application to overcome the abstract idea. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-11, 13 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hakami (US 2021/0272702 A1) in view of Sabeti (US 2021/0050116 A1).
CLAIM 1-
Hakami teaches the limitations of:
A method for monitoring tracks, comprising: maintaining a target list, stored a target track, by a monitoring server; (Hakami teaches monitoring a sick individual and maintaining a number of contacts (i.e., target list) that have been in location proximity to the sick person, storing the target location proximity links that connect the individuals (i.e., target track) by a computing system that includes a server (para [0035-0036, 0042]))
recording a first track related to a first mobile device by a first monitoring application installed in the first mobile device; (Hakami teaches recording a proximity location link of the sick user (i.e., first track) related to the mobile device of the infected person by the monitoring application on their first communications device and that the application software is installed on the user’s communication device (para [0035-0039, 0034, claim 4]))
wherein the first mobile device is associated with a first ID code, when the comparison result indicates that the first track matches the target track, the first monitoring application uploads the first ID code to the monitoring server (Hakami teaches that the mobile device is associated with a device serial number (i.e., first ID code) which compares probability of transmission between individuals that have come in contact with devices in a specific range and transmits the potential disease host serial number information to a server (para [0047, 0049]))
wherein the first ID code is de-identified by the first monitoring application before being uploaded to the monitoring server (Hakami teaches that that the device serial number is encrypted (i.e., digitized and without patient information, only the device serial number is exchanged which reads on the specification paragraph 31 of how the data code is encoding) for exchange of information of the potentially infected user’s transmitted data to the server (para [0042-0043, 0049 0025, 0088]))
Hakami does not explicitly teach, however Sabeti teaches:
and comparing a similarity between the first track and the target track by the first monitoring application to generate a comparison result (Sabeti teaches a connectivity score (i.e., comparison result) that is calculated based on comparing the similarities between user location data (i.e., first track) with the location data of other users (i.e., target track) (claim 1, para [0093]))
generating a reference track by the first monitoring application according to the first track when the comparison result indicates that the first track matches the target track (Sabeti teaches a connectivity score (i.e., comparison result) that is calculated based on comparing the similarities between user location data (i.e., first track) with the location data of other users (i.e., target track) and by including other types of data including geographic disease data that the user is in (i.e., reference track) (claim 1, para [0093, 0041]))
and uploading the reference track being de-identified, to the monitoring server by the first monitoring application (Sabeti teaches that the initial parameters of the outbreak in a specific geographic location are defined and the user health data is identified (i.e., PII de-identified) and uploaded to the system (para [0041, 0057, 0098, 0143, 0148]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pandemic tracking sickness application of Hakami to integrate calculation of a similarity score to compare users of Sabeti with the motivation of integrate information flows that connect user medical information to coordinate approaches to public health (see: Sabeti, paragraph 4).
CLAIM 3-
Hakami in view of Sabeti teaches the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 3, Sabeti further teaches:
pushing, by the monitoring server, the first ID code to a second monitoring application associated with a second mobile device; and determining, by the second monitoring application, whether the first ID code is recorded in a ID receiving list of the second mobile device (Sabeti teaches that a mobile device of an infected user is associated with a Bluetooth-contact tracing with multiple users that were in contact with the infected user (i.e., receiving list) using multiple computing devices to produce rea-ltime Bluetooth tracing data (i.e., Bluetooth codings) (para [0387, 0041, 0056, 00395], Figure 4))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pandemic tracking sickness application of Hakami to integrate Bluetooth tracing signal data to compare users of Sabeti with the motivation of integrate information flows that connect user medical information to coordinate approaches to public health (see: Sabeti, paragraph 4).
CLAIM 5-
Hakami in view of Sabeti teaches the limitations of claim 4. Regarding claim 5, Hakami further teaches:
wherein the first track includes at least a real geographic address, (Hakami teaches that the geographical address of the first individual is determined (para [0013]))
the reference track includes at least a reference geographic address, (Hakami teaches that the geographic range that the first individual has been in has a geographical address determined (para [0013]))
Hakami does not explicitly teach, however Sabeti teaches:
and in the step of generating the reference track by the first monitoring application according to the first track, further comprising: selecting a landmark address spaced apart by the real geographic addresses less than a first distance; (Sabeti teaches a “hot spot location” (i.e., landmark address) that is identified by cross-referencing the user locations (i.e., first track) and high-risk locations based on contagion (i.e., reference tracks) spaced apart by a distance step counter in GPS location to monitor the spread (para [0099, 0407]))
and setting the landmark address as the reference geographic address (Sabeti teaches that the probability of the hot spot locations containing contagions (i.e., landmark addresses) is determined as the reference address for a location of an outbreak by mapping border locations (para [0149]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pandemic tracking sickness application of Hakami to integrate comparison result tracking to compare users of Sabeti with the motivation of integrate information flows that connect user medical information to coordinate approaches to public health (see: Sabeti, paragraph 4).
CLAIM 6-
Hakami in view of Sabeti teaches the limitations of claim 5. Regarding claim 6, Sabeti further teaches:
wherein in the step of uploading the reference track, being de-identified, to the monitoring server by the first monitoring application, further comprising: (Sabeti teaches that the initial parameters of the outbreak in a specific geographic location are defined and the user health data is identified (i.e., PII de-identified) and uploaded to the system (para [0041, 0057, 0098, 0143, 0148]))
randomizing the reference geographic address to generate a plurality of second geographic addresses, each of the second geographic addresses corresponded to a weight value; (Sabeti teaches that potential outbreak locations are mapped and use randomization calculations and scored values that are ranked based on probability (i.e, weighted) to calculate the probability that they will be outbreak zones (para [0222, 0241, 0254, 0149, 0097, 0099]))
and uploading the second geographic addresses and the weight values corresponded to the second geographic addresses (Sabeti teaches an updated map with location addresses of borders in which it illustrates the probability values of the people that have been affected and are displayed in a list (para [0149, 0213], Figure 18))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pandemic tracking sickness application of Hakami to integrate comparison result tracking to compare two users of Sabeti with the motivation of integrate information flows that connect user medical information to coordinate approaches to public health (see: Sabeti, paragraph 4).
CLAIM 7-
Hakami in view of Sabeti teaches the limitations of claim 6. Regarding claim 7, Sabeti further teaches:
generating, by the monitoring server, a population distribution map according to the second geographic addresses and the weight values corresponded to the second geographic addresses; (Sabeti teaches an updated map with location addresses of borders in which it illustrates the probability values of the people that have been affected and are displayed in a list (para [0149, 0213], Figure 18))
and obtaining the population distribution map by a third monitoring application associated with a third mobile device; (Sabeti teaches that the monitoring system that creates the population maps can be conducted using multiple computing devices so each computing device can track the rate of transmission for each user (para [0072], Figure 12))
wherein the population distribution map records a track quantity associated with each of the landmark addresses in the target list (Sabeti teaches that the map tracks the quantity of population for the outbreak at each of the addresses in the affected areas (Figure 18, para [0143-0144]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pandemic tracking sickness application of Hakami to integrate comparison result tracking to compare two users of Sabeti with the motivation of integrate information flows that connect user medical information to coordinate approaches to public health (see: Sabeti, paragraph 4).
CLAIM 8-
Hakami in view of Sabeti teaches the limitations of claim 6. Regarding claim 8, Sabeti further teaches:
displaying, by the third monitoring application, (Sabeti teaches that the monitoring system that creates the population maps can be conducted using multiple computing devices so each computing device can track the rate of transmission for each user (para [0072], Figure 12)) the population distribution map within a second distance around a positioning address of the third mobile device (Sabeti teaches that the geographic region associated with each user is calculated to determine if an outbreak is in a distance around the user (para [0143-0144, 0163]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pandemic tracking sickness application of Hakami to integrate comparison result tracking to compare two users of Sabeti with the motivation of integrate information flows that connect user medical information to coordinate approaches to public health (see: Sabeti, paragraph 4).
CLAIM 9-
Hakami in view of Sabeti teaches the limitations of claim 7. Regarding claim 9, Sabeti further teaches:
displaying, by the third monitoring application, (Sabeti teaches that the monitoring system that creates the population maps can be conducted using multiple computing devices so each computing device can track the rate of transmission for each user (para [0072], Figure 12)) the population distribution map of an administrative area where a positioning address of the third mobile device is located (Sabeti teaches that the map can include specific geographic regions such as a college campus or a corporate facility where the users are located (para [0143]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pandemic tracking sickness application of Hakami to integrate comparison result tracking to compare two users of Sabeti with the motivation of integrate information flows that connect user medical information to coordinate approaches to public health (see: Sabeti, paragraph 4).
CLAIM 10-
Hakami in view of Sabeti teaches the limitations of claim 1. Regarding claim 10, Sabeti further teaches:
determining whether the distance between the real geographic address and the target geographic address is less than a third distance; and generating the comparison result indicating that the first track matches the target track when the distance between the real geographic address and the target geographic address is less than the third distance (Hakami tracks the distance between multiple patients (the infected patient (i.e., the first track) and the patients surrounding that infected patient (i.e., target track) based on their geographic coordinates and determines if the threshold distance between the multiple patients is probability of getting the contagion (para [0047, 0065, 0074]))
Hakami does not explicitly teach that a similarity link is calculated, Hakami teaches that a probability score is calculated with a likeliness, however Sabeti teaches:
wherein the first track includes at least a real geographic address, the target track includes at least a target geographic address, and in the step of comparing the similarity between the first track and the target track by the first monitoring application to generate the comparison result, further comprising: (Sabeti teaches a connectivity score (i.e., comparison result) that is calculated based on comparing the similarities between user location data (i.e., first track) with the location data of other users (i.e., target track) using real GPS location coordinates (claim 1, para [0093, 0407, 0446]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pandemic tracking sickness application of Hakami to integrate comparison result tracking to compare two users of Sabeti with the motivation of integrate information flows that connect user medical information to coordinate approaches to public health (see: Sabeti, paragraph 4).
CLAIM 11-
Claims 11 is significantly similar to claim 1 and is rejected upon the same prior art as claim 1.
CLAIM 13-
Hakami in view of Sabeti teaches the limitations of claim 12. Regarding claim 13, Sabeti further teaches:
wherein the transmission unit (Sabeti teaches an health application on a user device that transmits the data to the server (para [0091]) further receives a target ID code, and the first monitoring application determines whether the target ID code is recorded in a ID receiving list of the mobile device (Sabeti teaches that a mobile device of an infected user is associated with a Bluetooth-contact tracing signal that provides a connectivity score to indicate the probability of the infected person location (i.e., first track) matches a contact (i.e., target track), wherein the application uploads the data to the server (para [0387, 0395, 0382, 0093-0094])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pandemic tracking sickness application of Hakami to integrate Bluetooth tracing signal data to compare users of Sabeti with the motivation of integrate information flows that connect user medical information to coordinate approaches to public health (see: Sabeti, paragraph 4).
CLAIMS 15-16-
Claims 15-16 are significantly similar to claims 4-6 and are rejected upon the same prior art as claims 5-6 respectively.
CLAIM 17-
Hakami in view of Sabeti teaches the limitations of claim 15. Regarding claim 17, Sabeti further teaches:
wherein the first monitoring application receives a population distribution map (Sabeti teaches that the monitoring system that creates the population maps can be conducted using multiple computing devices so each computing device can track the rate of transmission for each user (para [0072], Figure 12)) through the transmission unit (Sabeti teaches an health application on a user device that transmits the data to the server (para [0091]), and the population distribution map records a track quantity associated with each of the landmark addresses in the target list (Sabeti teaches that the map tracks the quantity of population for the outbreak at each of the addresses in the affected areas (Figure 18, para [0143-0144]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the pandemic tracking sickness application of Hakami to integrate comparison result tracking to compare two users of Sabeti with the motivation of integrate information flows that connect user medical information to coordinate approaches to public health (see: Sabeti, paragraph 4).
CLAIMS 18-20-
Claims 18-20 are significantly similar to claims 8-10 and are rejected upon the same prior art respectively.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed 10/03/2025 have been fully considered.
The arguments pertaining to the 112 rejection is persuasive as the claims have been deleted. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the 103 rejection, these arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Hakami does not disclose that the received information is encrupted before transmitting information. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hakami teaches that based on a predetermined threshold the data is transmitted to indicate probability of a user being infected (i.e., the data is not transmitted if the predetermined threshold is not met, paragraph 7) and reads on how the specification recites that the code is encoded by a server and the same server then pushes out the information (paragraph 31 of the specification). The limitation of the first monitoring application de-identifying the code is being performed on the server, which reads on how Hakami is processing data through sequential steps on the system using application rules.
Regarding the arguments pertaining to the 101 rejection, these arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amendments are not well-understood, routine, and conventional and include specific limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, however Applicant does not point to why this is the case. Examiner points to the above rejection in which the originally filed specification was investigated and found to support this conclusion.
Applicant further argues that the claimed invention is not related to certain methods of managing personal behavior. Examiner respectfully disagrees as the claimed invention is directed towards users tracking users in a population, as reflected in the specification, which states that “In addition, the method of track monitoring method and the track monitoring module provided by the present invention can also provide a population distribution map around the mobile device of the user, thereby helping the user to evaluate the risk in a specific area.” (see: specification paragraph 46). The 101 rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KIMBERLY A SASS whose telephone number is (571)272-4774. The examiner can normally be reached 7AM-5PM (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 DUNHAM can be reached at 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.
/K.A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JASON B DUNHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3686