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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 20, 2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – Statutory Categories of Invention:
Claims 1-8 are drawn to an apparatus, claims 9-16 are drawn to a method, and claims 17-20 are drawn to a computer-readable storage medium which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17 recites an apparatus, a method and a computer-readable storage medium comprising the following:
ingesting data records …….;
generating a plurality of digital footprints for a plurality of users, respectively, which have access to a common finite space, wherein each digital footprint comprises a respective health value of a respective user generated based on ingested data records of the user;
identifying a user from among the plurality of users which is attempting to enter the common finite space;
in response to identifying the user, determining a cumulative safety value for the common finite space based on the digital footprint of the identified user and a digital footprint of one or more other users already present within the common finite space; and
transmitting an alert …….based on the determined cumulative safety value for the common finite space.
These steps are directed to generating a plurality of digital footprints for a plurality of users, which amounts to certain methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior; (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people).
Dependent claims 2, 10, and 18 recite, in part, configured to ingest the data records via two or more of a travel database, a public database, a medical database, and documents input….
Dependent claims 3, 11, and 19 recite, in part, configured to detect an input on a keypad associated with the common finite space, and identify the user based on a keycode entered into the keypad.
Dependent claims 4, 12, and 20 recite, in part, further configured to lock a door of the common finite space associated with the keypad based on the determined cumulative safety value for the common finite space.
Dependent claims 5 and 13 recite, in part, configured to recognize, via an imaging device, that the user is near the common finite space and is within a predetermined distance of a door to the common finite space.
Dependent claims 6 and 14 recite, in part, configured to display, …….., a layout of the common finite space, identifiers of the one or more other users that are present in the common finite space within the layout, and health values associated with the one or more users.
Dependent claims 7 and 15 recite, in part, configured to determine the cumulative safety value for the common finite space via aggregation of health scores for the user and the one or more users already present in the common space based on a bipartite model.
Dependent claims 8 and 16 recite, in part, further configured to detect the user enter the common finite space, and modify a health value of a user from among the one or more users already present in the common finite space based on the digital footprint of the user and an amount of time the user has been present in the common finite space.
Each of these steps of the preceding dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner.
Step 2A – Judicial Exception Analysis, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements within the claims only amount to instructions to implement the judicial exception using a computer [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Independent Claim 1 recites, in part, a processor, a plurality of application programming interface (API) calls, a memory, and a computing system. The specification defines a processor as Processor set110 includes one, or more, computer processors, (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0042), a plurality of application programming interface (API) calls as may identify particular users (by name) or any other identifier known such as social security number, home residence address, work address, date of birth, (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0083), a memory as computer system readable media in the form of volatile memory, such as random-access memory (RAM)610 and/or cache memory612. Computer system/server602 may further include other removable/non-removable, volatile/non- volatile computer system storage media, (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0101), and a computing system as (e.g., networks, network bandwidth, servers, processing, memory, storage, applications, virtual machines, and services), (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0021). The use of a processor, a plurality of application programming interface (API) calls, a memory, and a computing system are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Independent Claim 9 recites, in part, a plurality of application programming interface (API) calls, and a computing system. The specification defines a plurality of application programming interface (API) calls as may identify particular users (by name) or any other identifier known such as social security number, home residence address, work address, date of birth, (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0083), and a computing system as (e.g., networks, network bandwidth, servers, processing, memory, storage, applications, virtual machines, and services), (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0021). The use of a plurality of application programming interface (API) calls, and a computing system are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Independent Claim 17 recites, in part, a computer-readable storage medium, a plurality of application programming interface (API) calls, and a computing system. The specification defines a computer-readable storage medium as an electronic storage medium, a magnetic storage medium, an optical storage medium, an electromagnetic storage medium, a semiconductor storage medium, a mechanical storage medium (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0039), a plurality of application programming interface (API) calls as may identify particular users (by name) or any other identifier known such as social security number, home residence address, work address, date of birth, (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0083), and a computing system as (e.g., networks, network bandwidth, servers, processing, memory, storage, applications, virtual machines, and services), (Example Embodiments in ¶ 0021). The use of a computer-readable storage medium, a plurality of application programming interface (API) calls, and a computing system are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claims 2, 10, and 18 recite, in part, a travel database, a public database, a medical database, a user interface, and/or a processor. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claims 3 and 4, recite in part, a keypad and a processor. The additional element of claims 3 and 4 includes a keypad and a processor, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. This position is supported by Applicant’s Specification, (in at least ¶ [0020] and [0042]), Therefore, the processor and keypad additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Dependent claims 5 and 13 recite in part, an imaging device and/or a processor. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claims 6 and 14, recite in part, a display, a user interface and/or a processor. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claims 7 and 15, recite in part, a bipartite model and/or a processor. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claim 8, recites in part, a processor. The limitations are only recited as a tool to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the “Other examples.. v.”).
Dependent claims 11, 12, 19, and 20, recite in part, a keypad. The limitations are only recited as a tool which only serves to input data for use by the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(g) - insignificant pre/post-solution activity that amounts to mere data gathering to obtain input) and is therefore not a practical application of the recited judicial exception.
The above claims, as a whole, are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B – Additional Elements that Amount to Significantly More:
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Independent Claim 1 recites, in part, a processor, a plurality of application programming interface (API) calls, a memory, and a computing system. Independent Claim 9 recites, in part, a plurality of application programming interface (API) calls, and a computing system. Independent Claim 17 recites, in part, a computer-readable storage medium, a plurality of application programming interface (API) calls, and a computing system. Each of these elements is only recited as a tool for performing steps of the abstract idea, such as use of a processor to process data, use of a plurality of application programming interface (API) calls, a memory, and a computing system to input, store, and receive data. Use of a computer-readable storage medium to process and store data. These additional elements therefore only amount to mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (MPEP 2016.05(f) see for additional guidance on the “mere instructions to apply an exception”).
Each additional element under Step 2A, Prong 2 is analyzed in light of the specification’s explanation of the additional element’s structure. The claimed invention’s additional elements do not have sufficient structure in the specification to be considered a not well-understood, routine, and conventional use of generic computer components. Note that the specification can support the conventionality of generic computer components if “the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” (Berkheimer in III. Impact on Examination Procedure, A. Formulating Rejections, 1. on p. 3).
Dependent claims 2, 10, and 18 recite, in part, a travel database, a public database, a medical database, a user interface, and/or a processor. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Dependent claims 3 and 4, recite in part, a keypad and a processor. The additional element of claims 3 and 4 includes a keypad and a processor, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional. This position is supported by Applicant’s Specification, (in at least ¶ [0020] and [0042]), Therefore, the processor and keypad additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Dependent claims 11, 12, 19, and 20, recite in part, a keypad. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Dependent claims 5 and 13 recite in part, an imaging device and/or a processor. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Dependent claims 6 and 14, recite in part, a display, a user interface and/or a processor. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Dependent claims 7 and 15, recite in part, a bipartite model and/or a processor. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Dependent claim 8, recites in part, a processor. The courts have decided that storing and retrieving information in memory as well-understood, routine, conventional activity as a computer function when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 1-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5-10, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2016/0170996, Frank, et al., hereinafter Frank.
Regarding claim 1, Frank discloses an apparatus comprising:
a processor configured to ingest data records from a plurality of external data sources via a plurality of application programming interface (API) calls, (para. 279, at least some of the processing is performed via programs that may be considered software agents operating on behalf of the users who provided the measurements); and
a memory configured to store the ingested data records, (para. 296, a system including a processor and memory, the instructions cause the system to perform operations and para. 2416, a sensor may store data it collects and/processes (e.g., in electronic memory)),
wherein the processor is further configured to
generate a plurality of digital footprints for a plurality of users, respectively, which have access to a common finite space, wherein each digital footprint comprises a respective health value of a respective user generated based on ingested data records of the user, (para. 433, the distance-threshold is received by the alert module 184 and is utilized by the alert module 184 to determine who to send the notification 537. Optionally, different users may have different distance-thresholds according to which it may be determined whether they shall receive notifications regarding the location, and para. 528, the score may be based on measurements of one or more sensors that measure physiological signals such as heart rate, heart rate variability, skin conductance, skin temperature, and/or brainwave activity, and para. 530, a model may be used to compute a score indicative of a condition of user (e.g., the health state of the diners, para. 4296, users may be identified by third parties is through digital footprints and/or electromagnetic signals of their devices. Users may carry sophisticated devices (e.g., smartphones or wearable devices) that may login or identify themselves to various sites and/or networks.);
identify a user from among the plurality of users which is about to enter the common finite space, (para. 376, a security system of the hotel may identify when the user walks in or out of the hotel (e.g., via image analysis of video feeds obtained from security cameras));
in response to identification of the user, determine a cumulative safety value for the common finite space based on the digital footprint of the identified user and a digital footprint of one or more other users already present within the common finite space, (para. 531, scores, upon which alerts corresponding to a certain restaurant may be based, are computed based on measurements of affective response of diners, taken up to twelve hours after they ate food from the restaurant. Thus, at different times, the certain restaurant may have different scores computed for it, depending on the diners that were there and their measurements at that time. A decision to generate an alert, e.g., by issuing a notification indicative about a score computed for the restaurant, is dependent on the score falling below a wellness-threshold and para. 2733, the software agent may be active for some purposes and interact with a user based on an autonomous decision (e.g., the software agent issues a warning about a situation that compromises the user's safety when it is detected)); and
transmit an alert to a computing system based on the determined cumulative safety value for the common finite space, (para. 531, an alert may be generated (or canceled) at a certain time depending on the value of a score corresponding to the certain time).
Regarding claim 2, Frank discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Frank further discloses wherein the processor is configured to ingest the data records via two or more of a travel database, a public database, a medical database, and documents input via a user interface, (para. 2595, such databases may be maintained by entities that provide experiences to users and/or aggregate information about the users, such as content providers (e.g., search engines, video streaming services, gaming services, and/or hosts of virtual worlds), communication service providers (e.g., internet service providers and/or cellular service providers), e-commerce sites, and/or social networks.).
Regarding claim 5, Frank discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Frank further discloses wherein the processor is configured to recognize, via an imaging device, that the user is near the common finite space and is within a predetermined distance of a door to the common finite space, (para. 376, a device of the user may indicate the location of the user (e.g., via GPS and/or joining a local network at the hotel). In another example, a billing and/or management system of the hotel may receive indication of transactions conducted by the user at the hotel (e.g., ordering room service) and/or receive indication from a room management system that the user is in his/her room in the hotel (e.g., by noting when the room's door is opened and/or locked). In yet another example, a security system of the hotel may identify when the user walks in or out of the hotel (e.g., via image analysis of video feeds obtained from security cameras), and paragraphs 614-618, the location 512 represents a location in the physical world, in some embodiments, a decision on whether to forward the notification 564 to a certain user, from among the multiple users, may depend on the distance between the certain user and the location 512 and/or on the expected time it would take the certain user to reach the location).
Regarding claim 6, Frank discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Frank further discloses wherein the processor is configured to display, via a user interface, a layout of the common finite space, identifiers of the one or more other users that are present in the common finite space within the layout, and health values associated with the one or more users, (para. 433, the distance-threshold is received by the alert module 184 and is utilized by the alert module 184 to determine who to send the notification 537. Optionally, different users may have different distance-thresholds according to which it may be determined whether they shall receive notifications regarding the location, and para. 528, the score may be based on measurements of one or more sensors that measure physiological signals such as heart rate, heart rate variability, skin conductance, skin temperature, and/or brainwave activity, and para. 530, a model may be used to compute a score indicative of a condition of user (e.g., the health state of the diners, para. 4296, users may be identified by third parties is through digital footprints and/or electromagnetic signals of their devices. Users may carry sophisticated devices (e.g., smartphones or wearable devices) that may login or identify themselves to various sites and/or networks).
Regarding claim 7, Frank discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Frank further discloses wherein the processor is configured to determine the cumulative safety value for the common finite space via aggregation of health scores for the user and the one or more users already present in the common space based on a bipartite model, (para. 531, scores, upon which alerts corresponding to a certain restaurant may be based, are computed based on measurements of affective response of diners, taken up to twelve hours after they ate food from the restaurant. Thus, at different times, the certain restaurant may have different scores computed for it, depending on the diners that were there and their measurements at that time. A decision to generate an alert, e.g., by issuing a notification indicative about a score computed for the restaurant, is dependent on the score falling below a wellness-threshold and para. 2733, the software agent may be active for some purposes and interact with a user based on an autonomous decision (e.g., the software agent issues a warning about a situation that compromises the user's safety when it is detected) and para. 1442, algorithmic approaches that may be used involve predictors that use regression models, neural networks, nearest neighbor predictors, support vector machines for regression, and/or decision trees. In other embodiments, the parameters of the function may be learned using a binning-based approach. For example, the measurements (or values derived from the measurements) may be placed in bins based on their corresponding domain values.).
Regarding claim 8, Frank discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Frank further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to detect the user enter the common finite space, and modify a health value of a user from among the one or more users already present in the common finite space based on the digital footprint of the user and an amount of time the user has been present in the common finite space, (para. 275, the measurements of the at least ten users are taken in temporal proximity to when the at least ten users were in the certain location and represent an affective response of those users to being in the certain location. Herein “temporal proximity” means nearness in time, and para. 532, The scores 553 represent a state of health of the diners (e.g., how much the display characteristics of being healthy), as determined based on measurements taken during a certain period of time following their eating at the restaurant. Each dot on the graph represents a certain score from among the scores 553, which corresponds to a certain time t, based on the position of the dot on the horizontal time line. The height of the dot in the plot is indicative of the state of health of the diners during a certain period of time leading up to the time t. Each of the scores 553, which corresponds to a certain time t, is computed based on measurements of at least five of the diners, which were taken up to twelve hours after they ate at the restaurant and para. 534, Scores corresponding to Sunday 2 AM and later fall below the wellness-threshold 552, and thus, may lead to the generation of an alert by issuing a notification to one or more parties, such as managers of the restaurant 550, public health officials, and/or users who may consider eating at the restaurant).
Regarding claims 9, 10, and 13-16, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claims 1, 2, and 5-8.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claims 1 and 2. Frank further discloses a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, that when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method, (para. 267, stored on a computer-readable medium, which may optionally be a non-transitory computer-readable medium).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0170996, Frank, et al., hereinafter Frank in view of US 2021/0390807, Chaurasia, et al., hereinafter Chaurasia.
Regarding claim 3, Frank discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Frank does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is configured to detect an input on a keypad associated with the common finite space, and identify the user based on a keycode entered into the keypad.
However, Chaurasia teaches wherein the processor is configured to detect an input on a keypad associated with the common finite space, and identify the user based on a keycode entered into the keypad, (para. 88, the user 158 scans the access card 164, or other identification token, at the access card reader 154, as shown at block 181. The card reader 162 then reads the access card identifier (e.g., extracts the person's identification) from the access card 164 and transmits a signal to the controller 166 to make an access determination (e.g., whether the user 158 is allowed access based on the presented credentials), as shown at block 182. In some cases, the access card reader may be a biometric reader that reads biometric information directly from the user. The biometric information may include facial recognition, retina scan, finger print scan, etc. In this case, the “access card” would be the user's body itself).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the method of Frank to include the above limitations, as taught by Chaurasia, in order to help limit the spread of a disease within a building, (see Chaurasia at least para. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Frank discloses the apparatus of claim 1 as described above. Frank does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to lock a door of the common finite space associated with the keypad based on the determined cumulative safety value for the common finite space.
However, Chaurasia teaches wherein the processor is further configured to lock a door of the common finite space associated with the keypad based on the determined cumulative safety value for the common finite space, (para. 98, If the user 158 meets all of the criteria to enter the building or area, the controller 166 may communicate to the access control system 150 to release or open the locking mechanism to allow the user 158 to enter the building or area 156. If the user 158 has a skin temperature outside of the predetermined range and/or an appearance and/or a behavior that is atypical or indicative of an illness, the controller 166 may denying entrance to the user 158 and generate an alarm condition. As noted above, when more than one skin temperature is sensed or extracted from different regions of the user's body, both or all of the skin temperatures may be used to determine whether an alarm condition exists. In some cases, there may be differing alarm conditions. For example, a user 158 may have a skin temperature that is elevated for that particular user, but not high enough to deny access. This may create a different alarm condition than if the user 158 has a skin temperature high enough to deny access outright).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the method of Frank to include the above limitations, as taught by Chaurasia, in order to help limit the spread of a disease within a building, (see Chaurasia at least para. 3).
Regardings claim 11, 12, 19, and 20, these claims are rejected for the same reasons as set forth above with regard to claims 3 and 4. Frank further discloses a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions, that when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform a method.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
NETWORK TRACKING AND ENFORCEMENT OF SOCIAL DISTANCING PROTOCOLS (US 20210374891 A1) teaches Novel techniques are described for protocol tracking and/or enforcement (PT&E) of social distancing protocols in communication networks. For example, PT&E data can be received and aggregated from a large number of user mobile devices via wireless communication networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amber Misiaszek whose telephone number is 571-270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:30, First Friday Off.
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, Fonya Long can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682