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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 10, 2026 has been entered.
Notice to Applicant
The following is a Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 17/962,145, filed on October 07, 2022. In response to Examiner's Final Action dated March 10, 2026, Applicant filed Arguments and an Affidavit on July 10, 2026. Claims 1-22 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Affidavit
Applicant's Affidavit filed July 10, 2026 (hereinafter Affidavit) has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Examiner finds the Affidavit provided opinion based examples that are unsuccessful in providing a nexus between the claimed invention and the evidence. The evidence provided expounds upon the detection of a violent event by image processing of video data, determination of a baseline threshold using a machine learning model and continuous, real-time acquisition and fusion of physiological and location data and why these features cannot be performed in the human mind using pen and paper (see p. 3-6, Affidavit).
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, Examiner notes the digital image processing, machine learning model and electronic sensors and communication networks limitations are not considered abstract and therefore were not analyzed under Step 2A-Prong One. Examiner made no claim that these elements recited mental processes. However, Examiner finds the claim limitations reciting these elements are not technological in nature. Specifically, the digital image processing, machine learning model and electronic sensors and communication networks are disclosed at a high-level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use; see MPEP 2106.05(h). Examiner finds the aforementioned additional elements function as intended with no improvement to the technology. Examiner notes the alleged improvement is to an existing business process regarding the analysis of collected data for the generation of caregiver actions in response to calculating a holistic burnout risk score based on workload, emotional and physical burnout risk scores. As stated in the Final Action, the pending claim limitations constitute methods based on managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and methods that mimic human thought processes that can be performed mentally by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper, such as observations, evaluations, judgements and/or opinion. Examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea and the digital image processing, machine learning model and electronic sensors and communication networks do not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings.
Applicant has not presented evidence to refute this analysis. For at least these reasons the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed July 10, 2026 (hereinafter Applicant Remarks) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s Remarks will be addressed herein below in the order in which they appear in the response filed July 10, 2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states the Office Action asserts that the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes that "can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper." (Office Action, pp. 9-10.) Applicant respectfully disagrees. Under MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(ll), claims do not recite a mental process when they contain limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. Likewise, the USPTO's August 4, 2025 memorandum concerning artificial intelligence confirms that "[c]laim limitations that encompass Al in a way that cannot be practically performed in the human mind do not fall within [the mental process] grouping." The Meyerson Declaration establishes, as a factual and technical matter, that at least three categories of claimed operations cannot practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper (see p. 14-16, Applicant’s Remarks).
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the Final Action, Examiner notes the August 4th Memorandum is not new guidance, but a reminder to follow the current guidance. MPEP 2106.04(a), which states, in part, “Examiners should determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea by (1) identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea, and (2) determining whether the identified limitations(s) fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas. If the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim recites an abstract idea in Step 2A Prong One. As stated above, the digital image processing, machine learning model and electronic sensors and communication networks limitations are not considered abstract and therefore were not analyzed under Step 2A-Prong One and Examiner made no claim that these elements recited mental processes. Examiner finds the claim limitations reciting these elements are not technological in nature. The mere fact that a claim applies specific techniques to achieve desired result is never, in itself, justification for the allowance of such a claim”. Merely confining the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not establish a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. “A claim does not cease to be abstract for section 101 purposes simply because the claim confines the abstract idea to a particular technological environment in order to effectuate a real-world benefit.” In re Mohapatra, 842 F. App’x 635, 638 (Fed. Cir. 2021)..
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants states the claims do not recite certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims are not directed to managing personal behavior or interactions between people as such; they are directed to a specific sensor-based monitoring architecture that automatically acquires and machine-processes physiological data, wireless-signal-derived location data, and video data. That the claimed system ultimately causes an action with respect to a caregiver does not convert the recited machine-implemented sensing and processing operations into the organization of human activity. Characterizing the claims at that level of generality untethers the analysis from the actual claim language, contrary to MPEP § 2106.04(a).
In response, Examiner respectively disagrees. Examiner notes the machine-implemented sensing and processing operations do not take the present claims out of the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Data is collected and analyzed using the recited additional elements for the generation of caregiver actions in response to calculating a holistic burnout risk score based on workload, emotional and physical burnout risk scores. The abovementioned additional elements function as intended with no improvement to the technology. Examiner maintains the claim recites limitations that recite an abstract idea. Specifically, determining location data using the wireless signal associated with the tag in response to determining that the wireless signal is associated with a caregiver; receiving skin conductivity data associated with an amount of perspiration of the caregiver; receiving heart rate variability data associated with a departure from a threshold heart rate of the caregiver; receiving video data associated with an encounter between the caregiver and a patient; determining whether the encounter between the caregiver and the patient was a violent event; calculating, based on the skin conductivity data, the heart rate variability data, the determination of the violent event, and the location data associated with the caregiver: a workload burnout risk score indicative of a likelihood that the caregiver will experience burnout based on a workload condition in the clinical environment, a weighted emotional burnout risk score indicative of a likelihood that the caregiver will experience burnout based on an emotional condition experienced in the clinical environment relative to one or more personality traits associated with the caregiver, and a physical burnout risk score for the caregiver indicative of a likelihood that the caregiver will experience burnout based on a physical condition experienced in the clinical environment; calculating based on the workload burnout risk score, the weighted emotional burnout risk score, the physical burnout risk score, and a first coefficient associated with the workload burnout risk score, a second coefficient associated with the weighted emotional burnout risk score, and a third coefficient associated with the physical burnout risk score, a holistic burnout risk score for the caregiver; determining, based on historical data associated with the caregiver, a baseline threshold for the caregiver; determining that the holistic burnout risk score is greater than the baseline threshold; generating a report in response to a determination that the holistic burnout risk score is greater than the baseline threshold by a predetermined amount; and causing an action with respect to the caregiver in response to the holistic burnout risk score being greater than the baseline threshold, the action configured to mitigate or reduce at least one of the workload burnout risk score, the weighted emotional burnout risk score, or the physical burnout risk score, are limitations that constitute methods based on managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, thus recite an abstract idea.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant even assuming, arguendo, that the claims recite an abstract idea, the claims integrate any such abstract idea into a practical application. The claims recite a specific, ordered combination of elements: a tracking system sensor that receives a wireless signal broadcast from a tag and from which location data is determined; a personnel tracking system comprising a wearable device that provides skin conductivity data and heart rate variability data over one or more electronic communication networks; a camera that provides video data from which a violent event is detected via image processing techniques; a caregiver-specific baseline threshold determined from historical data, including via a trained machine learning model; a weighted, multi-factor holistic burnout risk score; and the automated generation and electronic transmission of a report and a mitigating action when the holistic score exceeds the baseline threshold. As the Meyerson Declaration explains, the scoring, thresholding, and reporting steps depend on inputs that are themselves the product of automated sensing and machine processing of continuous, real-time data streams, and the continuous acquisition and fusion of these heterogeneous data streams across an entire clinical environment is beyond the practical capability of any person. (Meyerson Decl. §§ 3(c), 4(c), 6.) The claimed combination thus provides a specific, technology-based solution, namely automated, objective, real-time monitoring of caregiver burnout risk, that cannot exist apart from the claimed sensing and processing architecture.
In response Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds automated, objective, real-time monitoring of caregiver burnout risk is an improvement to a business process and the claims do not recite any improvement to the technology, a technological field or computer-related technology. Examiner notes BASCOM was found eligible based on considerations relevant to Part 2B (does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the abstract idea) of the two-part framework outlined in MPEP § 2106; where claim 1 "carve[s] out a specific location for the filtering system (a remote ISP server) and require the filtering system to give users the ability to customize filtering for their individual network accounts". In contrast, the amended claims do not recite similar features. Examiner finds Applicant’s claim is not analogous to the network customization in BASCOM. Examiner finds the combination of additional elements recited in the claims do not perform any unconventional functions that can be considered “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Applicant has not identified any disclosure in the claimed invention showing and/or submitting that the technology used is being improved, there was a technical problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves, or the ordered combinations of the known elements is significantly more than instructions used to generate caregiver actions in response to a calculating a holistic burnout risk score based on workload, emotional and physical burnout risk scores.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states the Office Action characterizes the receipt of the wireless signal and the transmission of the report as "insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data." (Office Action, p. 11.) Applicant respectfully disagrees. The recited data- acquisition steps are not generic data gathering appended to an otherwise complete process; they define the particular machine-generated data on which every subsequent claimed operation depends. Skin conductivity data and heart rate variability data are unknowable to a human absent the claimed instrumentation (Meyerson Decl. § 4(c)), and the violent-event determination exists only as the output of the claimed image processing (Meyerson Decl. § 4(a)). These limitations are integral to the claimed monitoring system rather than mere pre- or post-solution activity.
Nor are the image processing and machine learning limitations merely generic computer components "used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea." (Office Action, p. 11.) A computer is used as a tool, in the sense contemplated by MPEP § 2106.05(f), when it performs an otherwise-mental process more quickly or efficiently. Here, by contrast, the evidence of record establishes that the recited operations, including frame-by-frame image processing, object detection and tracking, face and body recognition, and the training and execution of a machine learning model, have no mental counterpart at all. (Meyerson Decl. §§ 5-6.) A claim that requires operations only a machine can perform does not merely use a computer as a tool to implement a mental process.
In response Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds Applicants arguments are moot regarding the data-acquisition steps argued above because those specific limitations where not analyzed to be insignificant extra-solution activities. However, Examiner finds the pending claims are not technological in nature and merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims; see MPEP 2106.05(h). Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments are directed to improvements to an existing business process, automated by the present inventions additional elements without demonstrating an improvement to the technology or computer-related technology. Examiner notes Mackay Radio & Telegraph v. Radio Corp. of America is an example of applying a judicial exception with a particular machine. In this case, a mathematical formula was employed to use standing wave phenomena in an antenna system. The claim recited the particular type of antenna and included details of the shape of the antenna and the conductors, particularly the length and angle at which they were arranged. Examiner finds there is no similar technology, technological problem or solution here. The claim currently discloses the tracking system sensor, wireless signal broadcast from a tag, wearable device, electronic communication network, one or more processors, personnel tracking system, camera, graphical user interface and machine learning model at a high-level of generality. Examiner respectfully maintains, general purpose computer elements/structure, similar to the claimed inventions additional elements, used to apply a judicial exception, by use of instructions implemented on a computer, has not been found by the courts to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states even if the claims were directed to an abstract idea, they recite significantly more. In BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit held that an inventive concept may be found in the "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces." Here, even if each individual element were conventional, the claims recite a specific, non- generic arrangement: real-time locating system tag tracking, wearable-device physiological sensing of skin conductivity and heart rate variability, camera-based violent- event detection via image processing, and a machine-learning-determined, caregiver- specific baseline threshold, all fused into a weighted, multi-factor holistic burnout risk score that automatically triggers reporting and a mitigating action. The Office Action has identified no reference or evidence showing that this ordered combination of sensing, fusion, and machine-based determination was conventional.
Furthermore, under Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018), whether a claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine, and conventional is a question of fact that must be supported by evidence. The Office Action cites only generalized computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network and storing and retrieving information in memory (Office Action, pp. 12-13), and makes no factual finding, supported by any of the categories of evidence identified in the April 19, 2018 Berkheimer memorandum and MPEP § 2106.07(a)(III), that the claimed combination of camera-based violent-event detection, wearable physiological sensing, real-time location tracking, and machine-learning-based baseline determination is well- understood, routine, and conventional. The Meyerson Declaration is affirmative evidence of record that these operations require a particularized, machine-implemented architecture (Meyerson Decl. §§ 4-7), and that evidence must be considered and weighed in any continued assertion under Step 2B. See MPEP § 2106.07(b).
For at least the foregoing reasons, and in view of the evidence of record including the Meyerson Declaration, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-22 are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and requests withdrawal of the rejection.
In response Examiner disagrees. For the same reasons as stated above, Examiner finds the present claims do not recite similar improvements to BASCOM. Examiner finds Applicant is attempting to say the Step 2A-Prong One elements, the abstract idea, is what makes the claim eligible. Applicant has provided no detailed explanation to the configuration of the combination of additional elements nor has Applicant identified any disclosure in the claimed invention showing and/or submitting that the ordered combinations of the known elements is significantly more than the abstract idea. The tracking and collecting of data through a real-time location system, wearable sensing devices and camera based image processing to calculate holistic burnout risk score from individually calculated workload, emotional, physical burnout risk scores, and use of machine learning to dynamically adjust a baseline threshold used to generate reports and determine if the holistic burnout risk score meets the criteria for a mitigating/reduction action of a caregiver is directed to the improvement to an existing business process (i.e., personnel management) and not to the technology, a technological field or computer-related technology. Applicant is describing the use of the additional elements without disclosing any improvement to how they functions, reflecting and/or submitting that the technology used is being improved or there was a technical problem with the technology that the claimed invention solves.
Examiner finds Applicants remarks regarding the Berkheimer Memorandum are moot because the Examiner never referred to or described any of the claim elements as “well-understood, routine and conventional”. However, Examiner notes in light of Berkheimer, Examiner did point to citations reciting computer functions outlined in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that the courts found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature (e.g. receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory), therefore satisfying the requirements outlined in the Berkheimer Memo. Examiner finds the pending claims do not disclose any unconventional computer functions that can be considered significantly more than the judicial exception. Applicant has not identified any disclosure that would alter this analysis. For at least these reasons, claims 1-22 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Step 1: The claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Claims 1-9, 21 and 22 are directed towards a method, claims 10-15 are directed towards a system and claims 16-20 are directed towards a computer-readable storage medium, which are among the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: The claims recite an abstract idea.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite generating caregiver actions in response to calculating a holistic burnout risk score based on workload, emotional and physical burnout risk scores.
Claim 1 recites limitations directed to an abstract idea based on certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes. Specifically, determining location data using the wireless signal associated with the tag in response to determining that the wireless signal is associated with a caregiver; receiving skin conductivity data associated with an amount of perspiration of the caregiver; receiving heart rate variability data associated with a departure from a threshold heart rate of the caregiver; receiving video data associated with an encounter between the caregiver and a patient; determining whether the encounter between the caregiver and the patient was a violent event; calculating, based on the skin conductivity data, the heart rate variability data, the determination of the violent event, and the location data associated with the caregiver: a workload burnout risk score indicative of a likelihood that the caregiver will experience burnout based on a workload condition in the clinical environment, a weighted emotional burnout risk score indicative of a likelihood that the caregiver will experience burnout based on an emotional condition experienced in the clinical environment relative to one or more personality traits associated with the caregiver, and a physical burnout risk score for the caregiver indicative of a likelihood that the caregiver will experience burnout based on a physical condition experienced in the clinical environment; calculating based on the workload burnout risk score, the weighted emotional burnout risk score, the physical burnout risk score, and a first coefficient associated with the workload burnout risk score, a second coefficient associated with the weighted emotional burnout risk score, and a third coefficient associated with the physical burnout risk score, a holistic burnout risk score for the caregiver; determining, based on historical data associated with the caregiver, a baseline threshold for the caregiver; determining that the holistic burnout risk score is greater than the baseline threshold; generating a report in response to a determination that the holistic burnout risk score is greater than the baseline threshold by a predetermined amount; and causing an action with respect to the caregiver in response to the holistic burnout risk score being greater than the baseline threshold, the action configured to mitigate or reduce at least one of the workload burnout risk score, the weighted emotional burnout risk score, or the physical burnout risk score constitutes methods based on managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, as well as, methods of evaluations, observation and judgement that can be performed by a combination of the human mind and a human using pen and paper. The recitation of an electronic communication network, one or more processors, personnel tracking system, camera, image processing techniques and a graphical user interface does not take the claim out of the certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes groupings. Thus the claim recites an abstract idea. Claims 10 and 16 recite certain method of organizing human activity and mental processes for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites receiving, via a tracking system sensor in a clinical environment, a wireless signal broadcast from a tag associated with equipment or personnel; and electronically transmitting a report to an administration system of the clinical environment in response to on a determination that the holistic burnout risk score is greater than the baseline threshold by a predetermined amount, the report including a graphical user interface (GUI) displaying the holistic burnout risk score and additional holistic burnout risk scores and associated baseline thresholds for additional caregivers in the clinical environment, which are limitations considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claim 1 recites a tracking system sensor, wireless signal broadcast from a tag, wearable device, electronic communication network, one or more processors, personnel tracking system, camera and a graphical user interface at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, claim 1 recites image processing techniques at a high level of generality (see par. 0066). The general use of a known image processing technique does not provide a meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the image processing techniques disclosed in the claims are solely used as a tool to perform the instructions of the abstract idea. Thus, the additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and therefore is directed to an abstract idea. The system comprising a transceiver and one or more processors recited in claim 10 and computer-readable storage medium storing instructions executed by a processor in claim 16 also amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements recited in claims 10 and 16 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 1.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including the an electronic communication network, one or more processors, an administration system, personnel tracking system, camera and a graphical user interface, system comprising a transceiver and one or more processors and computer-readable storage medium amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as 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); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
§ 101 Analysis of the dependent claims.
Regarding the dependent claims, dependent claim 6 recites sending, over the one or more electronic communication networks, the report to an administrator of the clinical environment responsible for the caregiver and claim 7 recites display of the GUI including a calendar identifying days/shifts worked by the caregiver which is considered an insignificant extra-solution activities of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Claims 2, 11 and 17 recite clinical data sources, claim 6 recites electronic communication networks and claim 7 recites a GUI, all of which are recited at a high level of generality, which amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 21 recites determining the baseline threshold comprises determining the baseline threshold using a machine learning approach and claim 22 recites wherein determining the baseline threshold comprises providing the skin conductivity data, the heart rate variability data, and the location data to a machine learning model trained to output a baseline threshold. The machine learning technique is disclosed at a high-level of generality (see at least Specification [0106]) and the general use of a machine learning technique does not provide a meaningful limitation to transform the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the machine learning models disclosed in the claims are solely used as a tool to perform the instructions of the abstract idea. Additionally, claims 3-5, 7-9, 12-15 and 18-20 recite steps that further narrow the abstract idea. Therefore claims 2-9, 11-15 and 17-22 do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mollicone et al. (US 20120203464 A1) – A normalized contextual performance metric quantifies the susceptibility of fatigue-related risk in a fatigue environment with activities conducted within a fatigue level range of interest. Fatigue incidents are quantified by one of a plurality of values associated with fatigue-incident measurement. Activities are quantified by one of a plurality of values associated with activity measurement. A normalized contextual performance metric is determined by identifying a fatigue level range of interest, summing all values of incidents occurring at the fatigue level range of interest, summing all values for relevant activities occurring at the fatigue level range of interest, and then dividing the first sum by the second. The normalized contextual performance metric thereby allows operational managers to assess risk of fatigue incidents by monitoring activities and fatigue levels within the fatigue environment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Crystol Stewart whose telephone number is (571)272-1691. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Patty Munson can be reached on (571)270-5396. 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.
/CRYSTOL STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights