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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This non-final office action is in response to the response filed on February 27, 2026.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-12, 15-17 and 19-22 have not been amended.
Claims 3, 4, 8, 13-14, and 18 were previously canceled.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-12, 15-17, and 19-22 remain pending and have been examined.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-12, 15-17, and 19-22 included subject matter free of prior art as indicated in the final office action dated December 04, 2025. The claims were not amended and remain free of prior art.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed February 27, 2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because Applicant has not provided a copy with an English translation of the foreign applications referenced in the statement; nor have they provided copies of the Office Actions or Notice of Allowances relevant to the applications listed in the IDS.. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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.
Claim 1, 2, 5-7, 9-12, 15-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Eligibility Step 1 (Does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?)
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-10, and 21 are drawn to a method, and claims 11-12, 15-17, 19-20, and 22 are drawn to a system, both of which are within the four statutory categories.
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?)
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9-12, 15-17, and 19-22 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below:
The Examiner has identified independent method claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis.
Claim 1 recites a series of steps for evaluating a person’s mobility and predicting their risk of falling, which, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an abstract idea that falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas such as managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., following a set of rules or instructions to determine a user’s one or more mobility metrics, calculating walking steadiness indicators, predicting a user’s risk for falling based on the calculated indicators, and initiating an action based on the risk).
Claim 1 recites the following limitations which set forth the abstract idea:
obtaining, …, one or more mobility metrics indicative of a user's mobility, the mobility metrics obtained at least in part from sensor data;
evaluating, …, the one or more mobility metrics over one or more specified time periods to derive one or more longitudinal features;
estimating, …, a plurality of walking steadiness indicators based on a plurality of component models and the one or more longitudinal features;
wherein the walking steadiness indicators are based at least in part on a capacity model that estimates strength and endurance of the user and a variability model that estimates the step-to-step changes in the user’s walking,
wherein the capacity model is configured for:
estimating the user’s vertical acceleration based on the sensor data;
estimating the user’s walking speed, cadence and step length based on the estimated vertical acceleration;
generating a strength indicator of the user based on a combination of the estimated walking speed, cadence and step length of the user;
estimating periods of sustained walking by the user,
grouping the estimated period of sustained walking into bouts of specified lengths;
generating an endurance indicator of the user based on the specified bout lengths;
determining a second walking steadiness indicator based on the variability model that estimates the step-to-step changes in the user’s walking;
inferring, …, the user's risk of falling based at least in part on the plurality of walking steadiness indicators including the first and second walking steadiness indicators […]; and
initiating, …, an action or application based at least in part on the user's risk of falling.
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the following additional elements:
at least one processor of a mobile device
at least one sensor of the mobile device
memory storing instructions that when executed by the at least one processor of a mobile device, cause the at least one processor to perform operations (claim 11)
using an ensemble of machine learning models
The processor and sensor elements are recited a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception (see United Services Automobile Association v. PNC Bank, N.A., 139 F.4th 1332, 1334, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2025) defining a mobile device as a generic computing component). The use of ensemble of machine learning models merely represent “apply it” to the abstract idea, i.e., apply ensemble of machine learning models, to the abstract idea. The Specification does not describe the type of ensemble machine learning models, and therefore, the machine learning could be part of the abstraction. However, the Examiner, has treated it as an additional element for completeness. The Examiner notes that capacity and variability models are considered to be a mathematical concept, within the main abstract idea. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04 (d)(I) which states that merely having the words “apply it” and/or “generally linking” the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use is insufficient to provide a practical application or significantly more). Therefore, claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
The use of additional elements noted above as tools to implement/automate the abstract idea does not render claims 1 and 11 to be patent eligible because it does not provide meaningful limitations and requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea.
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?):
Claims 1 and 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements of a processor, sensor, and memory to perform the generic computer functions amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component while training and use of ensemble of machine learning models also represents “apply it” (see MPEP 2106.05(A) or generally link the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05 (I)(A)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept and applying an additional element to the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more . Claims 1 and 11 are, therefore, not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 15-17, 19-22 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above.
Dependent claims 2, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 15-17, and 19-22 do not recite any additional elements (different than those listed in their respective independent claims) that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements considered in the dependent claims both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to more than the judicial exception for the same reasons discussed above. Therefore, the dependent claims are directed to an abstract idea. Claims 2, 5-7, 9-10, 12, 15-17, and 19-22 are, therefore, not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 101 Rejection:
Issue #1:
Applicant argues: “Claims 1-20 are integrated into the practical application of fall risk detection. More particularly, claims 1-20 recite subject matter that improves upon existing technologies for fall risk detection…The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued an advance notice of change to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) to incorporate Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel (ARP) Decision), a decision addressing subject matter eligibility under § 101. In Desjardins, the ARP faulted a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) panel for evaluating a machine learning claim at too high a level of generality at Alice Step 2A, Prong Two (integration of judicial exception into practical application), explaining that Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) is the proper precedent under which to evaluate claims directed to improvements to the functioning of a computer or other technology or technical field. The updates to the MPEP thus reflect the latest developments in the controlling case law, clarify examiners' responsibilities when examining claims directed to technological improvements, and provide additional examples of patent-eligible improvements based on Desjardins.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claimed invention is like that in Enfish and Desjardins. In each of these cases, the computer was improved through improvements present in the claims. For instance, Enfish provided improvements to the computer in the form of a self-referential table that allowed the data in the table to be accessed faster. Similarly, Desjardins provided an improvement to the computer by improving how the machine learning operated. Applicant’s claimed invention provides no such improvement as discussed below.
Issue #2:
Applicant argues: “The Examiner evaluated the claims at a high level of generality, eschewing the clear teachings of Enfish, and substituted only a cursory analysis that ignored this well-settled precedent.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner is at a loss as to how (as Applicant put it) the rejection was evaluated at a high level of generality. The rejection clearly identified the abstract portions of the claim using Applicant’s claim language. Further, the Examiner evaluated every additional element in the claim. The Examiner is very unclear as to how that is a high level of generality.
Issue #3:
Applicant argues: “For example, the Examiner offered no factual analysis regarding why the specific implementation steps below do not meet the Enfish standard. The Examiner looked only at the additional elements and did not review the additional elements together with specific implementation steps below. Nor did the Examiner analyze the specification.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is no factual evidence required to prove that a practical application or a significantly more is not present. Further, by analyzing the additional elements of the claim, the Examiner has evaluated the claims in line with the Enfish standard. The Applicant has not identified nor can the Examiner locate any improvement to the computer within the meaning of Enfish (or Desjardins). In reference to review of the additional elements together with specific implementation steps (i.e., the abstract idea), this was performed as part of the 2A-2 and 2B analysis. See final rejection, Page 6-9. The Examiner reiterates that the additional elements that are in addition to the abstract idea do not provide a practical application or significantly more even in light of Enfish. There is no indication that the mobile device is improved by application of the abstraction. Review of the specification does not indicate that such an improvement is present.
Issue #4:
Applicant argues: In paragraph [0043], the Applicant expressly discloses improvements to fall risk detection technology: "Particular embodiments described herein provide one or more of the following advantages. A mobile device platform ( e.g., a smartphone, smartwatch, fitness band) is disclosed that combines sensors, such as accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, barometer, and Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) (e.g., Global Position System (GPS)), to assess the quality and dynamic balance of a user's walking gait (referred to hereinafter as "walking steadiness"), classifies how the user's walking steadiness compares to the walking steadiness of the general population, and predicts a likelihood of the user falling ("fall risk") in the future (e.g., the next 12 months)." The remaining specification provides technical details for how these improvements are implemented. The claims recite the specific implementations steps to implement the improvement to fall risk detection in accordance with Enfish, and all recites the improvement in the claims itself.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The ‘improvements’ described in Paragraph [0043] represent improvements to the abstract idea. There is no indication that the mobile device is improved through application of the abstraction.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and is listed in the attached form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited). Unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, all documents listed on form PTO-892 are cited in their entirety.
Stone et al. (US 20170055917 A1) teaches: Systems For Automatic Assessment of Fall Risk.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MALAK M NASSER whose telephone number is (703)756-4610. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Mamon Obeid 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.
/MALAK M NASSER/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687