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
The following is a Final Office Action for Application Serial Number: 17/962,145, filed on October 07, 2022. In response to Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection dated October 22, 2025, Applicant on February 20, 2026, amended claims 1, 2, 4, 7-11, 13, 16, 17, 19 and 22. Claims 1-22 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendments are acknowledged.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants arguments and amendments have been considered but are insufficient to overcome the rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed February 20, 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 February 20, 2026.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant states as stated in the 2019 Guidelines, when performing step 2A of the patent-eligibility guidelines, the Office is required to determine whether the claims are directed to one of the groups enumerated in the 2019 Guidelines. 2019 Guidelines, p. 9. The groupings include (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (3) mental processes. Id., pp. 9-11. Here, the claims cannot be fairly said to fall into one of these groupings. For example, the amended claims recite "receiving...skin conductivity data," "receiving...heart rate variability data," and "determining...a weighted emotional burnout risk score... relative to one or more personality traits associated with the caregiver." Additionally, the claims also now recite the use of "image processing techniques" to analyze video data to determine whether an interaction with a patient is a violent interaction and also to determine a weighted emotional burnout risk score based on the caregiver's personality traits. None of these determinations are such that can be made by a human mind with or without a pen and paper. Even if it were possible for a human mind to make such calculations, it would be completely impractical for a supervisor to personally collect skin conductivity data and heart rate data from an employee after a violent and/or non-violent event. Likewise, it is, at the very least, impracticable for a supervisor to be able to calculate a weighted emotional burnout risk score based on personality traits of a caregiver, especially considering that many emotional responses and personality traits may be based on private and sensitive information known only to the caregiver. Thus, the very nature of the information is un-knowable by another human"
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner finds the "receiving...skin conductivity data," "receiving...heart rate variability data," and "determining...a weighted emotional burnout risk score... relative to one or more personality traits associated with the caregiver are not technological in nature, but rather various types of data received via a communication network that was collected from a personal tracking system, which Examiner finds merely limits the abstract idea to a particular environment. The image processing techniques is recited in the claims and disclosed in the specification (see par. 0066) at a high level of generality, such that it solely used as a tool to perform the instructions of the abstract idea. Examiner finds a human can observe and evaluate video data received from a camera in a clinical environment to determine violent encounters between caregivers and patients. Additionally, Examiner finds Applicants arguments regarding private and sensitive information known only to the caregiver is moot because the claim explicitly states the calculation of a workload burnout risk score, weighted emotional burnout risk score and physical burnout risk score is based on information (i.e., skin conductivity data, the heart rate variability data, the determination of the violent event, and the location data associated with the caregiver) received via one or more of the electronic communication networks.
Examiner finds even in a computer environment where the claim recites how the computer processes the data and in what order, these limitations are still considered abstract. Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer; see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C). Examiner finds the pending claims recite similar limitations to claims the courts have indicated may not be sufficient in showing an improvement in computer-functionality, such as accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017), A commonplace business method being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; see MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Examiner maintains the claims recite an abstract idea.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicants states even assuming arguendo that the Office could satisfy the first prong of the "abstract idea" analysis, under the second prong, the claims are integrated into a practical application and are therefore not directed to an abstract idea. For example, the claims recite novel functionality to allow for the use of machine learning to determine a baseline threshold. "Claim limitations that encompass Al in a way that cannot be practically performed in the human mind do not fall within [the mental process] grouping." 35 U.S.C. 101 Reminders Memo, Dated August 4, 2025.
For at least the reasons presented herein, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office has not established a prima facie case of patent ineligibility with respect to claims 1- 20. As such, Applicant requests withdrawal of the § 101 rejection of claims 1-20.
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. Examiner maintains 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 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, thus recite an abstract idea.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, Applicant argues BASCOM (see p. 15-16, Applicant Remarks) and states similar to the claims under consideration in Bascom, even if arguendo all of the features that the currently pending claims recite are "known" or "conventional," the claims at issue are still patent eligible because the claims recite a "non-conventional and non- generic arrangement" of those features and so recite an "inventive concept" and "specific technical solution." Specifically, the claims at issue can correlate a level of computing and communications hardware with a level of service need in a way and using particular types of information that provides both an inventive concept and a specific technical solution.
In response Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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 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 argues Berkheimer (see p. 16-17, Applicant Remarks) and states in this case, the Office has not established that Applicant's claim elements constitute "well-understood, routine, conventional activities" as required by the April 2018 Memo. The test under Berkheimer is not whether an Examiner may decide to conclude that certain features are well-understood, routine, and conventional based on the Examiner's subjective reading of the specification. Instead, as outlined above and in the previous office action responses, the test is whether the specification makes an express statement that features are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Nothing in Applicant's specification amounts to an express statement that any of the features falling fairly outside of the alleged abstract idea are well-understood, routine, or conventional. Consequently, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office has not made a prima facie rejection of claims under Step 2B of the Mayo test.
For at least the reasons presented herein, claims 1-22 recite significantly more than the abstract idea alleged by the Office. Thus, Applicant respectfully submits that the Office has not established a prima facie case of patent ineligibility with respect to claims 1-22. As such, Applicant requests withdrawal of the § 101 rejection of claims 1-22.
In response Examiner disagrees. 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 a 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 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.
Lundin et al. ( US 20180107962 A1) – Determining stress and productivity insights based on computerized data is described. Productivity data and stress-related behavior data associated with a user may be determined. The stress-related behavior data may be based on sensor data received from sensor(s) associated with a device corresponding to the user. The stress-related behavior data may be utilized to determine a first value indicative of stress associated with the user and the productivity data may be utilized to determine a second value indicative of productivity of the user. The productivity data, the stress-related behavior data, the first value, and/or the second value may be utilized to determine a recommendation. The recommendation may be intended to modify the first value and/or the second value. A user interface configured to communicate the recommendation to the user may be presented via the device.
Hull et al. (US 11436549 B1) – A system collects information associated with the work performance and work satisfaction of caregiver's who provide in-home care services to seniors. A machine learning system is trained to predict caregiver attrition and generate a user interface display indicative of a risk an individual caregiver will attrit. The system may also be used to determine action steps to reduce the risk of attrition of a caregiver.
Stephenson et al. (US 20140278629 A1) – A method for employee attendance monitoring, including: receiving biometric information unique to an employee, the biometric information including a timestamp; identifying the employee based on the biometric information; updating a work record associated with the employee based on the timestamp in response to employee identification; analyzing the biometric information to extract a physiological parameter of the employee; updating a physiological record associated with the employee; and generating a recommendation for an employer based on the physiological record associated with the employee.
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 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