DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1 and 8 have been amended.
Claims 6 and 12 have previously been canceled.
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 have been rejected.
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 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are directed to a system, method, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Independent Claim 1 discloses a computer-implemented system (20) for accident and medical emergency response, the system (20) comprising: one or more hardware processors (30); and a memory coupled to the one or more hardware processors (30), wherein the memory comprises a set of program instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors (30), cause the one or more hardware processors (30) to: register one or more entities, wherein the one or more entities comprise one or more affected users and one or more healthcare service providers wherein upon the registration, create and store a respective profile for each entity of the one or more entities; determine one or more emergencies associated with the one or more affected users enable the one or more affected users to select one or more healthcare services based on the one or more emergencies; connect the one or more healthcare service providers to the one or more affected users based on the one or more healthcare services selected receive a payment from the one or more affected users via a payment card upon connecting the one or more healthcare service providers; receive one or more deliver-related details of an infant corresponding to an affected user of the one or more affected users, wherein the one or more deliver-related details are updated in a profile corresponding to the affected user by the affected user or a health care provider of the one or more healthcare service providers, wherein the one or more deliver-related details comprises a vital status of the infant and a corresponding health status of the affected user automatically enforce a conditional record management in a healthcare database by: when the vital status indicates a birth, creating a structured infant profile in the healthcare database and electronically associating the structured infant profile with a family tree profile of the affected user; and when the vital status indicates a death, preventing creation of the structured infant profile; enable the one or more affected users to upload one or more images associated with an emergency of the one or more emergencies; and upon upload of the one or more images, automatically send an emergency alert to one or more emergency contacts associated with the one or more affected users.
Independent Claim 7 discloses method (220) performed by a computer-implemented system (20) comprising one or more hardware processors, for accident and medical emergency response, the method (220) comprising: registering, by the one or more hardware processors, one or more entities, wherein the one or more entities comprise one or more affected users and one or more healthcare service providers (230); determining, by the one or more hardware processors, one or more emergencies associated with the one or more affected users; enabling, by the one or more hardware processors, the one or more affected users to select one or more healthcare services based on the one or more emergencies; connecting, by the one or more hardware processors, the one or more healthcare service providers based on the one or more health care services selected by the one or more affected users; receiving, by the one or more hardware processors, a payment from the one or more affected users via a payment card upon connecting the one or more healthcare services; and receiving by the one or more hardware processors, one or more deliver-related details of an infant corresponding to an affected user of the one or more affected users, wherein the one or more deliver-related details are updated in a profile corresponding to the affected user by the affected user or a health care service provider of the one or more healthcare service providers, wherein the one or more deliver-related details comprises a vital status of the infant and a corresponding health status of the affected user; automatically enforcing a conditional record management in a healthcare database by: when the vital status indicates a birth, creating a structured infant profile in the healthcare database and electronically associating the structured infant profile by the one or more hardware processors, with a family tree profile of the affected user; and when the vital status indicates a death, preventing, by the one or more hardware processors, creation of the structured infant profile; enabling the one or more affected users to upload one or more images associated with an emergency of the one or more emergencies; and upon uploading of the one or more images, automatically send an emergency alert to one or more emergency contacts associated with the one or more affected users.
The noted above limitations are merely directed to rules or instructions for organizing patients based on the emergency service a patient requires and creating a profile or not based on delivery related details. The series of steps recited above describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and thus are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity which is an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
Independent Claims 1 discloses the following additional elements:
A computer-implemented system comprising one or more hardware processors wherein the computer-implemented system electronically associates [a profile] and automatically sends [alerts]
A memory coupled to the one or more hardware processors, wherein the memory comprises a set of program instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to [execute the method]
A payment card
A healthcare database
Electronically associating [a profile]
Independent Claims 7 discloses the following additional elements:
A method performed by a computer-implemented system comprising one or more hardware processors wherein the computer-implemented system a electronically associates [a profile] and automatically sends [alerts]
A payment card
A healthcare database
In particular, the computer implemented system comprising one or more hardware processors wherein the computer-implemented system electronically associates [a profile] and automatically sends [alerts] (of Claim 1), a memory coupled to the one or more hardware processors, wherein the memory comprises a set of program instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to [execute the method] (of claim 1), and the method performed by a computer-implemented system comprising one or more hardware processors wherein the computer-implemented system automatically sends alerts (of claim 7) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception.
Applicant’s specification states in paragraphs 67-69 - FIG. 5 is a block diagram of an integrated end to end computer system or server 190 in accordance with an embodiment of the present disclosure. The computer system 190 includes processor(s) 30, and memory 200 coupled to the processor(s) 30 via a bus 210. The memory 200 is stored locally on a user device. The processor(s) 30, as used herein, means any type of computational circuit, such as, but not limited to, a microprocessor, a microcontroller, a complex instruction set computing microprocessor, a reduced instruction set computing microprocessor, a very long instruction word microprocessor, an explicitly parallel instruction computing microprocessor, a digital signal processor, or any other type of processing circuit, or a combination thereof. The memory 200 includes a plurality of units stored in the form of executable program which instructs the processor 30 to perform the configuration of the system illustrated in FIG. 1. Thus, the computer and memory are performing as expected.
Claims 1 and 7 further recite the additional element of a payment card and a healthcare database which merely generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, claim(s) 1 and 7 are directed to an abstract idea(s) without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the computer implemented system comprising one or more hardware processors wherein the computer-implemented system automatically sends alerts (of claim 1), the memory coupled to the one or more hardware processors, wherein the memory comprises a set of program instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors, cause the one or more hardware processors to [execute the method] (of claim 1), and the method performed by a computer-implemented system comprising one or more hardware processors wherein the computer-implemented system automatically sends alerts (of claim 7) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more’). MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying "apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the payment card and healthcare database were considered to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the ‘significantly more' analysis and has been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP2106.05 (A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept (‘significantly more").
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional element do not provide significantly more. As such the independent claims 1 and 7 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent claim(s) 2-5 and 8-11 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Dependent claims 2-5 and 8-11 do not further disclose any additional elements.
Thus, the dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuhara (WO 2018/079377 A1) in view of Aganyan (US PG Pub 2019/0385753 A1), further in view of Gray (US PG Pub 2021/0233629 A1) and the NPL reference “SOS” (SOS: Tips for utilizing your smartphone in an emergency).
Regarding Claim 1, Yuhara discloses:
A computer-implemented system (20) for accident and medical emergency response, the system (20) comprising:
one or more hardware processors (30); and (Pages 2-3, paragraphs 7 and 2 respectively along with Fig. 1 disclose the pregnancy state monitoring system 100 of the present embodiment mainly includes a load detection unit 1, a control unit 3, a storage unit 4, and a display unit 5… The control unit 3 is a dedicated or general purpose computer, in which a signal analysis unit 31, a breathing information calculation unit 32, a heartbeat information calculation unit 33, a center of gravity position calculation unit 34, and a state monitoring unit 35 are built.)
determine one or more emergencies associated with the one or more affected users; (Summary of the invention discloses it is therefore an object of the present invention to provide a pregnancy detection system capable of detecting the contraction state of the uterus (appearance of labor) [emergency] by a noninvasive method without causing inconvenience or discomfort to a pregnant woman.)
select one or more healthcare services based on the one or more emergencies; connect the one or more healthcare service providers to the one or more affected users based on the one or more healthcare services selected, (Page 9, paragraph 2 discloses when the pregnancy state monitoring system 100 is used together with the bed at home, the examiner urges the subject S to go to the maternity hospital through the notification unit 6. In addition, it communicates with a taxi company or the like via the communication unit 7 [the selection of a healthcare service] to request dispatching and notifies the maternity hospital that the subject S is going to the hospital soon. At this time, the breathing rate and the heart rate of the mother body S1, the heart rate of the fetus S2, the labor period T and the labor duration time D may be informed to the maternity hospital. Also, if it is determined that it is necessary based on the breathing rate and heart rate of the mother body S1, the heart rate of the fetus S2, etc., an ambulance may be arranged instead of dispatching a taxi [connecting the healthcare service provider (ambulance or taxi driver) of the one or more healthcare services based on the emergency].)
While Yuhara discloses the above limitations and connecting the one or more healthcare service providers by the healthcare service provider connecting subsystem (100) as disclosed above, it does not fully disclose the following limitations that Aganyan discloses:
a memory coupled to the one or more hardware processors (30), wherein the memory comprises a set of program instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors (30), cause the one or more hardware processors (3) to: (Para 46 discloses such computer-readable media can comprise a random-access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an electrically erasable programmable ROM (EEPROM), compact disk ROM (CD-ROM) or other optical disk storage, magnetic disk storage, solid state memory, or any other data storage devices, combinations of the aforementioned types of computer-readable media, or any other medium that can be used to store computer executable code in the form of instructions or data structures that can be accessed by a computer.)
register one or more entities, wherein the one or more entities comprise one or more affected users and one or more healthcare service providers; wherein upon the registration, create and store a respective profile for each entity of the one or more entities; (Para 27 discloses both the patients and healthcare providers (e.g., doctors, physicians, dentists, veterinarians, certified healthcare professionals, etc.) can register with the web service and establish patient profiles and healthcare provider profiles, respectively.)
enable the one or more affected users to select one or more healthcare services (Para 107 discloses in case the condition of the patient is life threatening (for example, a person is having a heart attack or severe allergic reaction), the patient himself [affected user] or an uberized medical doctor can call or would recommend to call, through the communication platform of the system of the present disclosure, uberized paramedics/ambulance [select one or more healthcare services]. Once the patient location have been matched the closest paramedic or ambulance, the system may send the closest paramedic or ambulance to pick up the patient and transfer to the emergency room.)
receive a payment from the one or more affected users via a payment card upon connecting the one or more healthcare service providers [[and]] (Para 27 discloses a healthcare service center is provided to connect patients and healthcare providers. Para 54 discloses system architecture 100 further includes a payment processing system [payment receiving subsystem] configured to process online payments of the patients 140. Healthcare service center 105 can be in operative communication with the payment processing system in order to being able to cause the payment processing system to process a payment of the patients for healthcare services [payment upon connecting the healthcare service provider]. Para 84 discloses the patient profiles can include, for example, a patient name, address and contact information, payment data (e.g., credit card information), healthcare insurance data, credentials (e.g., a login and password).)
Yuhara and Aganyan are analogous art because Yuhara discloses a system that determines if a woman is going into labor and subsequently calls a taxi or an ambulance and Aganyan discloses a platform that a allows a patient to call for an ambulance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pregnant state monitoring system as taught by Yuhara with the uberization and decentralization of healthcare services as taught by Aganyan in order to improve upon a delay in immediate doctor-patient contacts, slow implementation of planned actions, and time consuming processes (Aganyan Para 3).
While the combination of Yuhara and Aganyan disclose the above limitations, the combination does not fully disclose the following limitations that Gray discloses:
receive one or more deliver[[y]]-related details of an [[newborn]] infant corresponding to an affected user of the one or more affected users, wherein the one or more deliver[[y]]-related details are updated in a profile corresponding to the affected user by the affected user or a health care service provider of the one or more healthcare service providers, wherein the one or more deliver[[y]]-related details comprises a [[birth outcome]] vital status of the infant and a corresponding health status of the affected user appropriate selective fashion. Preferably, the shared chart is arranged to gather information in a manner that is workflow specific, corresponding to a particular clinical workflow, involving data collection/input for multiple related/interconnected patients (such as a mother and one or more babies) in a single graphical user interface window displayable in its entirety on a single display screen. Para 28 discloses the PRM 240 may include a database interface program providing standard database access to one or more database files stored in the data store 224 for this purpose, e.g., using conventional database query language. By way of example, the database files containing the electronic medical record data may be structured data files holding data elements for various data fields associated with relevant medical information, such as, for example, patient height, weight, age, sex, prescription medications, diagnoses, conditions, blood pressure, blood type, heart rate, and any other aspects relevant to medical care [wherein indicating a weight of the child is a detail that indicates a viable birth and thus indicates a birth outcome since there is no definition of viable in the Applicant’s specification and the diagnoses, conditions, blood pressure, blood type, and heart rate all read on the health status]. Further, Para 33 discloses a shared chart template 224b for breastfeeding may include information for causing display of a shared chart GUI including fields for entry of date, time, and quality of feed data. The feed data gathered via the shared chart GUI may pertain to both the mother and the child. For example, such feed data is relevant to the baby in that it speaks to the intake for the newborn [additional health status specifically of the baby], and further is relevant to the mother, e.g., if she is having breast pain, skin breakdown, or having infection symptoms such as mastitis [additional health status specifically of the mother]. Para 39 discloses the RME 230 may identify the patient medical record of John Doe, a child borne by mother Jane Doe in the present hospital stay [newly created medical record as the child was born in the present hospital stay]. The RME 230 then identifies a patient record corresponding to the linked patient, namely, John Doe, as shown at 314, e.g., by reference to the patient record data 224a.)
automatically enforce a conditional record management in a healthcare database by: when the vital status a birth infant profile in the healthcare database and electronically associating the structured [[newborn]] infant profile with a family tree profile of the affected user; and when the [[birth outcome]] vital status indicates a death (Examiner notes the conditional language of the “conditional record management in a healthcare database” and further notes that Gray reads on these limitations as it discloses a patient medical record only for a child borne… in a present hospital visit and thus discloses creating a structured newborn infant profile when the birth is viable and in the broadest reasonable interpretation of preventing creation, Gray is not creating a profile for a non- viable infant which thus reads on the conditional language of the claim. Para 28 discloses the PRM 240 may include a database interface program providing standard database access to one or more database files stored in the data store 224 for this purpose, e.g., using conventional database query language. By way of example, the database files containing the electronic medical record data may be structured data files holding data elements for various data fields associated with relevant medical information, such as, for example, patient height, weight, age, sex, prescription medications, diagnoses, conditions, blood pressure, blood type, heart rate, and any other aspects relevant to medical care [wherein indicating a weight of the child is a detail that indicates a viable birth and thus indicates a birth outcome since there is no definition of viable in the Applicant’s specification]. Para 33-34 discloses the EMR system 200 allows a healthcare provider to use a caregiver computing device 90a, 90b to communicate and exchange data with the EMR system to review and/or record clinically-relevant patient information into the shared chart displayed as a shared chart GUI by the RME 200… The RSM 260 is operable to cause data entered via a particular shared chart template/GUI to be shared according to the corresponding data sharing rule 224e for that particular shared chart template/GUI, and to share and store the corresponding shared data in the corresponding patient electronic medical record 224a for each relevant patient, as determined by the record link data 224c associating patients and/or the shared chart associations 224d. Accordingly, from the user's perspective, a healthcare provider may review and/or record clinically-relevant patient information into the shared chart displayed as a shared chart GUI by the RME 200 only once, and the RSM260 automatedly populates relevant data into each relevant patient's electronic medical record to effectively synchronize the individual electronic medical records with the shared chart. Para 39 discloses the RME 230 may identify the patient medical record of John Doe, a child borne by mother Jane Doe in the present hospital stay [newly created medical record as the child was born in the present hospital stay]. The RME 230 then identifies a patient record corresponding to the linked patient, namely, John Doe, as shown at 314, e.g., by reference to the patient record data 224a.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the pregnant state monitoring system as taught by Yuhara and the uberization and decentralization of healthcare services as taught by Aganyan with the electronic medical record system providing cross-patient data population and display as taught by Gray in order to receive data associated with multiple associated patients (e.g. mother and baby) and avoid duplicative data entry and associated errors allow for compact data input and display relative to available physical space on a display device (Gray Abstract).
While the combination of Yuhara, Aganyan, and Gray disclose the above limitations, it does not fully disclose the following limitations that the SOS NPL reference discloses:
enable the one or more affected users to upload one or more images associated with an emergency of the one or more emergencies; and upon upload of the one or more images, automatically send an emergency alert to one or more emergency contacts associated with the one or more affected users (The “If you have an Android… section discloses activate the feature: Now that SOS is setup, you are ready to activate it. To do so, quickly press your power button three times. If you elected to send photos and audio, the phone will now take pictures with your front and rear cameras and record an ambient audio clip. These will be sent with a map of your location and the words “I need help” to the contacts that you selected [wherein the “add emergency contacts” discloses you will be prompted to add anywhere from one to four contacts before the emergency occurs so when the accident / emergency occurs, the pictures are sent automatically to the contact previously selected rather than manually selecting the contacts to send pictures to in real time. The NPL reference takes the photos after a user activates the emergency feature and thus initiates uploading a photo and then sending the photos in an alert thus reading on this limitation].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the pregnant state monitoring system as taught by Yuhara, the uberization and decentralization of healthcare services as taught by Aganyan, and the electronic medical record system providing cross-patient data population and display as taught by Gray with uploading photos and alerting emergency contacts of an emergency as taught by the SOS NPL reference in order to increase the safety of a user (such as a patient) by automatically alerting the emergency contacts after an action is taken.
Regarding Claim 2, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, the combination of Yuhara, Aganyan, Gray and the SOS NPL reference further disclose the following limitation that Yuhara discloses:
The system (20) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more services comprise at least one of an ambulance service, a hospital service and a health worker service. (Page 9, paragraph 2 discloses when the pregnancy state monitoring system 100 is used together with the bed at home, the examiner urges the subject S to go to the maternity hospital through the notification unit 6. In addition, it communicates with a tai company or the like via the communication unit 7 to request dispatching and notifies the maternity hospital that the subject S is going to the hospital soon. At this time, the breathing rate and the heart rate of the mother body S1, the heart rate of the fetus S2, the labor period T and the labor duration time D may be informed to the maternity hospital. Also, if it is determined that it is necessary based on the breathing rate and heart rate of the mother body S1, the heart rate of the fetus S2, etc., an ambulance may be arranged instead of dispatching a taxi.)
Regarding Claim 5, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Aganyan discloses wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors (30), further cause the one or more hardware processors (30) (see Aganyan para 109) and Aganyan Para 102 further discloses “the healthcare service center may automatically determine a preliminary diagnosis of the requesting patient based at least in part on the real-time vital parameters and provide a suggestion message [notification] containing the preliminary diagnosis to the requesting patient or the responding healthcare provider.” Further, the combination of Yuhara, Aganyan, Gray and the SOS NPL reference further disclose the following limitation that Yuhara discloses:
The system (20) as claimed in claim 1, to generate one or more notification signals for the one or more healthcare service providers upon connecting the one or more healthcare service providers (Page 6, Paragraph 10 discloses the presence or absence of uterine contraction and the intensity of uterine contraction determined by the state monitoring unit 35 are displayed on the display unit 5. Further, when the state of uterine contraction satisfies a predetermined criterion, for example, when uterine contraction continues beyond a predetermined time or when the intensity of uterine contraction exceeds a predetermined value, the state monitoring unit 35 uses the notification unit 6 And communicate using the communication unit 7, and notify the doctor or the midwife of the monitoring result [notification signals for the one or more healthcare service providers].)
Regarding Claim 7, Yuhara discloses:
A method (220) performed by a computer-implemented system comprising one or more hardware processors, for accident and medical emergency response, the method (220) comprising:
determining, by the one or more hardware processors, one or more emergencies associated with the one or more affected users; (Summary of the invention discloses it is therefore an object of the present invention to provide a pregnancy detection system capable of detecting the contraction state of the uterus (appearance of labor) [emergency] by a noninvasive method without causing inconvenience or discomfort to a pregnant woman.
enabling, by the one or more hardware processors, the selection of one or more healthcare services based on the one or more emergencies connecting, by the one or more hardware processors, the one or more healthcare service providers based on the one or more health care services (Page 9, paragraph 2 discloses when the pregnancy state monitoring system 100 is used together with the bed at home, the examiner urges the subject S to go to the maternity hospital through the notification unit 6. In addition, it communicates with a taxi company or the like via the communication unit 7 [the selection of a healthcare service] to request dispatching and notifies the maternity hospital that the subject S is going to the hospital soon. At this time, the breathing rate and the heart rate of the mother body S1, the heart rate of the fetus S2, the labor period T and the labor duration time D may be informed to the maternity hospital. Also, if it is determined that it is necessary based on the breathing rate and heart rate of the mother body S1, the heart rate of the fetus S2, etc., an ambulance may be arranged instead of dispatching a taxi [connecting the healthcare service provider (ambulance or taxi drive) of the one or more healthcare services based on the emergency].)
While Yuhara discloses the above limitations, it does not fully disclose the following limitations that Aganyan discloses:
registering, by the one or more hardware processors, one or more entities, wherein the one or more entities comprise one or more affected users and one or more healthcare service providers (230); (Para 27 discloses both the patients and healthcare providers (e.g., doctors, physicians, dentists, veterinarians, certified healthcare professionals, etc.) can register with the web service and establish patient profiles and healthcare provider profiles, respectively.)
enabling, by the one or more hardware processors, the one or more affected users to select one or more healthcare services based on the one or more emergencies (250); connecting by the one or more hardware processors, the one or more healthcare service providers based on the one or more health care services selected by the one or more affected users (Para 107 discloses in case the condition of the patient is life threatening (for example, a person is having a heart attack or severe allergic reaction), the patient himself [affected user] or an uberized medical doctor can call or would recommend to call, through the communication platform of the system of the present disclosure, uberized paramedics/ambulance [select one or more healthcare services]. Once the patient location have been matched the closest paramedic or ambulance, the system may send the closest paramedic or ambulance to pick up the patient and transfer to the emergency room.)
receiving, by the one or more hardware processors, a payment from the one or more affected users via a payment card upon connecting the one or more healthcare services and (Para 27 discloses a healthcare service center is provided to connect patients and healthcare providers. Para 54 discloses system architecture 100 further includes a payment processing system [payment receiving subsystem] configured to process online payments of the patients 140. Healthcare service center 105 can be in operative communication with the payment processing system in order to being able to cause the payment processing system to process a payment of the patients for healthcare services [payment upon connecting the healthcare service provider]. Para 84 discloses the patient profiles can include, for example, a patient name, address and contact information, payment data (e.g., credit card information), healthcare insurance data, credentials (e.g., a login and password).)
Yuhara and Aganyan are analogous art because Yuhara discloses a system that determines if a woman is going into labor and subsequently calls a taxi or an ambulance and Aganyan discloses a platform that a allows a patient to call for an ambulance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pregnant state monitoring system as taught by Yuhara with the uberization and decentralization of healthcare services as taught by Aganyan in order to improve upon a delay in immediate doctor-patient contacts, slow implementation of planned actions, and time consuming processes (Aganyan Para 3).
While the combination of Yuhara and Aganyan disclose the above limitations, the combination does not fully disclose the following limitations that Gray discloses:
receiving by the one or more hardware processors, one or more deliver[[y]]-related details of an infant [[newborn]] corresponding to an affected user of the one or more affected users, wherein the one or more deliver[[y]]-related details are updated in a profile corresponding to the affected user by the affected user or a health care service provider of the one or more healthcare service providers, wherein the one or more deliver[[y]]-related details comprises a [[birth outcome]] vital status of the infant and a corresponding health status of the affected user (Para 4 discloses there are limited circumstances in which care of multiple patients is interrelated, and information may be relevant or shared across multiple individual patients. An example of such a circumstance is mother/child couplet care, following birth. Para 7 discloses the EMR system provides for data sharing and/or automated population of data from the shared chart [profile corresponding to affected user] into multiple linked electronic medical records of multiple patients in an appropriate selective fashion. Preferably, the shared chart is arranged to gather information in a manner that is workflow specific, corresponding to a particular clinical workflow, involving data collection/input for multiple related/interconnected patients (such as a mother and one or more babies) in a single graphical user interface window displayable in its entirety on a single display screen. Para 28 discloses the PRM 240 may include a database interface program providing standard database access to one or more database files stored in the data store 224 for this purpose, e.g., using conventional database query language. By way of example, the database files containing the electronic medical record data may be structured data files holding data elements for various data fields associated with relevant medical information, such as, for example, patient height, weight, age, sex, prescription medications, diagnoses, conditions, blood pressure, blood type, heart rate, and any other aspects relevant to medical care [wherein indicating a weight of the child is a detail that indicates a viable birth and thus indicates a birth outcome since there is no definition of viable in the Applicant’s specification and the diagnoses, conditions, blood pressure, blood type, and heart rate all read on the health status]. Further, Para 33 discloses a shared chart template 224b for breastfeeding may include information for causing display of a shared chart GUI including fields for entry of date, time, and quality of feed data. The feed data gathered via the shared chart GUI may pertain to both the mother and the child. For example, such feed data is relevant to the baby in that it speaks to the intake for the newborn [additional health status specifically of the baby], and further is relevant to the mother, e.g., if she is having breast pain, skin breakdown, or having infection symptoms such as mastitis [additional health status specifically of the mother]. Para 39 discloses the RME 230 may identify the patient medical record of John Doe, a child borne by mother Jane Doe in the present hospital stay [newly created medical record as the child was born in the present hospital stay]. The RME 230 then identifies a patient record corresponding to the linked patient, namely, John Doe, as shown at 314, e.g., by reference to the patient record data 224a.)
automatically enforcing a conditional record management in a healthcare database by: when the [[birth outcome]] vital status indicates a [[viable birth]] birth, creating a structured [[newborn]] infant profile in the healthcare database and electronically associating the structured [[newborn]] infant profile by the one or more hardware processors, with a family tree profile of the affected user; and when the [[birth outcome]] vital status indicates a death (Examiner notes the conditional language of the “conditional record management in a healthcare database” and further notes that Gray reads on these limitations as it discloses a patient medical record only for a child borne… in a present hospital visit and thus discloses creating a structured newborn infant profile when the birth is viable and in the broadest reasonable interpretation of preventing creation, Gray is not creating a profile for a non- viable infant which thus reads on the conditional language of the claim. Para 28 discloses the PRM 240 may include a database interface program providing standard database access to one or more database files stored in the data store 224 for this purpose, e.g., using conventional database query language. By way of example, the database files containing the electronic medical record data may be structured data files holding data elements for various data fields associated with relevant medical information, such as, for example, patient height, weight, age, sex, prescription medications, diagnoses, conditions, blood pressure, blood type, heart rate, and any other aspects relevant to medical care [wherein indicating a weight of the child is a detail that indicates a viable birth and thus indicates a birth outcome since there is no definition of viable in the Applicant’s specification]. Para 33-34 discloses the EMR system 200 allows a healthcare provider to use a caregiver computing device 90a, 90b to communicate and exchange data with the EMR system to review and/or record clinically-relevant patient information into the shared chart displayed as a shared chart GUI by the RME 200… The RSM 260 is operable to cause data entered via a particular shared chart template/GUI to be shared according to the corresponding data sharing rule 224e for that particular shared chart template/GUI, and to share and store the corresponding shared data in the corresponding patient electronic medical record 224a for each relevant patient, as determined by the record link data 224c associating patients and/or the shared chart associations 224d. Accordingly, from the user's perspective, a healthcare provider may review and/or record clinically-relevant patient information into the shared chart displayed as a shared chart GUI by the RME 200 only once, and the RSM260 automatedly populates relevant data into each relevant patient's electronic medical record to effectively synchronize the individual electronic medical records with the shared chart. Para 39 discloses the RME 230 may identify the patient medical record of John Doe, a child borne by mother Jane Doe in the present hospital stay [newly created medical record as the child was born in the present hospital stay]. The RME 230 then identifies a patient record corresponding to the linked patient, namely, John Doe, as shown at 314, e.g., by reference to the patient record data 224a.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the pregnant state monitoring system as taught by Yuhara and the uberization and decentralization of healthcare services as taught by Aganyan with the electronic medical record system providing cross-patient data population and display as taught by Gray in order to receive data associated with multiple associated patients (e.g. mother and baby) and avoid duplicative data entry and associated errors allow for compact data input and display relative to available physical space on a display device (Gray Abstract).
While the combination of Yuhara, Aganyan, and Gray disclose the above limitations, it does not fully disclose the following limitations that the SOS NPL reference discloses:
enabling the one or more affected users to upload one or more images associated with an emergency of the one or more emergencies; and upon uploading of the one or more images, automatically send an emergency alert to one or more emergency contacts associated with the one or more affected users (The “If you have an Android… section discloses activate the feature: Now that SOS is setup, you are ready to activate it. To do so, quickly press your power button three times. If you elected to send photos and audio, the phone will now take pictures with your front and rear cameras and record an ambient audio clip. These will be sent with a map of your location and the words “I need help” to the contacts that you selected [wherein the “add emergency contacts” discloses you will be prompted to add anywhere from one to four contacts, the NPL reference takes the photos after a user activates the emergency feature and thus initiates uploading a photo thus reading on this limitation].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the pregnant state monitoring system as taught by Yuhara, the uberization and decentralization of healthcare services as taught by Aganyan, and the electronic medical record system providing cross-patient data population and display as taught by Gray with uploading photos and alerting emergency contacts of an emergency as taught by the SOS NPL reference in order to increase the safety of a user (such as a patient) by automatically alerting the emergency contacts after an action is taken.
Regarding Claim 8, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Further, the combination of Yuhara, Aganyan, Gray and the SOS NPL reference further disclose the following limitation that Yuhara discloses:
The method (220) as claimed in claim 7, wherein enabling the one or more affected users to select the one or more healthcare services comprise enabling the one or more affected users to select at least one of an ambulance service, a hospital service, and a health worker service. (Page 9, paragraph 2 discloses when the pregnancy state monitoring system 100 is used together with the bed at home, the examiner urges the subject S to go to the maternity hospital through the notification unit 6. In addition, it communicates with a taxi company or the like via the communication unit 7 to request dispatching and notifies the maternity hospital that the subject S is going to the hospital soon. At this time, the breathing rate and the heart rate of the mother body S1, the heart rate of the fetus S2, the labor period T and the labor duration time D may be informed to the maternity hospital. Also, if it is determined that it is necessary based on the breathing rate and heart rate of the mother body S1, the heart rate of the fetus S2, etc., an ambulance may be arranged instead of dispatching a taxi.)
Regarding Claim 11, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. Aganyan discloses instructions executed by the one or more hardware processors (see Aganyan para 109) and Aganyan Para 102 further discloses “the healthcare service center may automatically determine a preliminary diagnosis of the requesting patient based at least in part on the real-time vital parameters and provide a suggestion message [notification] containing the preliminary diagnosis to the requesting patient or the responding healthcare provider.” Further, the combination of Yuhara, Aganyan, Gray and the SOS NPL reference further disclose the following limitation that Yuhara discloses:
The method (220) as claimed in claim 7, comprising generating, by the one or more hardware processors, one or more notification signals for the one or more healthcare service providers upon connection of the one or more healthcare service providers. (Page 6, Paragraph 10 discloses the presence or absence of uterine contraction and the intensity of uterine contraction determined by the state monitoring unit 35 are displayed on the display unit 5. Further, when the state of uterine contraction satisfies a predetermined criterion, for example, when uterine contraction continues beyond a predetermined time or when the intensity of uterine contraction exceeds a predetermined value, the state monitoring unit 35 uses the notification unit 6 And communicate using the communication unit 7, and notify the doctor or the midwife of the monitoring result [notification signals for the one or more healthcare service providers].)
Claim(s) 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuhara (WO 2018/079377 A1) in view of Aganyan (US PG Pub 2019/0385753 A1), further in view of Gray (US PG Pub 2021/0233629 A1), the NPL reference “SOS” (SOS: Tips for utilizing your smartphone in an emergency). and Robbin (US PG Pub 2015/0149358 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. While Aganyan discloses a payment processing system, the combination of Yuhara, Aganyan, Gray and the SOS NPL reference does not fully disclose the following limitation that Robbin discloses:
The system (20) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the payment card is shared within a family, as the family tree profile of the one or more affected users. (Para 11-12 discloses the linking rules can dictate how the linked user accounts make purchases. For example, the linking rules can dictate that each user account included in a group of linked user accounts must make purchases using the same payment method, such as a single credit card [shared payment card] or bank account. In some embodiments, a group of linked user accounts [family tree profile] can include a master user account. The master user account can have increased functionality such as being able to set the payment method for the group of linked user accounts, authorize a user account to join the group, etc. Para 65 discloses a family that has their user accounts linked together in a group must make their purchased using a single credit card. )
Aganyan and Robbin are analogous art because Aganyan discloses a payment processing system and Robbin discloses a payment method for a group of linked user accounts. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the pregnant state monitoring system as taught by Yuhara, the uberization and decentralization of healthcare services as taught by Aganyan, the electronic medical record system providing cross-patient data population and display as taught by Gray, and the uploading of photos and alerting emergency contacts of an emergency as taught by the SOS NPL reference with the linked user accounts as taught by Robbin in order to allow a user to set the payment method for the group of linked user accounts (Robbin para 12).
Regarding Claim 9, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. While Aganyan discloses receiving the payment from the one or more affected users via the payment card and “system architecture 100 further includes a payment processing system [receiving the payment] configured to process online payments of the patients 140. Healthcare service center 105 can be in operative communication with the payment processing system in order to being able to cause the payment processing system to process a payment of the patients for healthcare services” (Aganyan Para 54) and “the patient profiles can include, for example, a patient name, address and contact information, payment data (e.g., credit card information), healthcare insurance data, credentials (e.g., a login and password),” (Aganyan Para 8), the combination of Yuhara, Aganyan, Gray and the SOS NPL reference does not fully disclose the following limitation that Robbin discloses:
The method (220) as claimed in claim 7, wherein receiving the payment from the one or more affected users via the payment card comprises receiving the payment from the one or more affected users via the payment card shared within a family as the family tree profile of the one or more affected users (Para 11-12 discloses the linking rules can dictate how the linked user accounts make purchases. For example, the linking rules can dictate that each user account included in a group of linked user accounts must make purchases using the same payment method, such as a single credit card [shared payment card] or bank account.
In some embodiments, a group of linked user accounts [family tree profile] can include a master user account. The master user account can have increased functionality such as being able to set the payment method for the group of linked user accounts, authorize a user account to join the group, etc. Para 65 discloses a family that has their user accounts linked together in a group must make their purchased using a single credit card. )
Aganyan and Robbin are analogous art because Aganyan discloses a payment processing system and Robbin discloses a payment method for a group of linked user accounts. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the pregnant state monitoring system as taught by Yuhara, the uberization and decentralization of healthcare services as taught by Aganyan, the electronic medical record system providing cross-patient data population and display as taught by Gray, and the uploading of photos and alerting emergency contacts of an emergency as taught by the SOS NPL with the linked user accounts as taught by Robbin in order to allow a user to set the payment method for the group of linked user accounts (Robbin para 12).
Claim(s) 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuhara (WO 2018/079377 A1) in view of Aganyan (US PG Pub 2019/0385753 A1), further in view of Gray (US PG Pub 2021/0233629 A1), the NPL reference “SOS” (SOS: Tips for utilizing your smartphone in an emergency). and Van Wyck (US PG Pub 2016/0267228 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Yuhara, Aganyan, Gray and the SOS NPL reference does not fully disclose the following limitation that Van Wyck discloses:
The system (20) as claimed in claim 1, wherein the instructions that, when executed by the one or more hardware processors (30), further cause the one or more hardware processors (30) to generate a health card comprising a health card registration number for the one or more affected users. (Para 12 discloses In addition, “unique identification codes” may be associated with (1) classes of health services programs or “health cubes,” and (2) health information about particular individuals possessing the unique identification codes. Para 86 discloses upon receiving and entering the data element 306 providing the personally identifiable information in the data structure 308, the data element 306 may be linked to a particular unique identification code 310 (such as Code 1). Para 89 discloses in a generation step 316, a document 318, which may be a registration card or “boarding pass,” may be generated by the system 300 and provided to the participant 302. The document 318 may include an indicium 320 for indicating the particular unique identification code [registration number] 310 (from among the plurality of unique identification codes 310 in the data structure 308) linked to the participant 302.)
Aganyan and Van Wyck are analogous art because Aganyan discloses assigning a patient identifier to the patient and Van Wyck discloses generating a registration card that may include a particular unique identification code linked to the participant. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the pregnant state monitoring system as taught by Yuhara, the uberization and decentralization of healthcare services as taught by Aganyan, the electronic medical record system providing cross-patient data population and display as taught by Gray, and the uploading of photos and alerting emergency contacts of an emergency as taught by the SOS NPL with the system for onboarding participants of health services programs as taught by Van Wyck in order to improve onboarding participants of health services programs (Van Wyck para 7).
Regarding Claim 10, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Yuhara, Aganyan, Gray and the SOS NPL reference does not fully disclose the following limitation that Van Wyck discloses:
The method (220) as claimed in claim 7, comprising generating, by a health card generation subsystem by the one or more hardware processors, a health card comprising a health card registration number for the one or more affected users. (Para 12 discloses In addition, “unique identification codes” may be associated with (1) classes of health services programs or “health cubes,” and (2) health information about particular individuals possessing the unique identification codes. Para 86 discloses upon receiving and entering the data element 306 providing the personally identifiable information in the data structure 308, the data element 306 may be linked to a particular unique identification code 310 (such as Code 1). Para 89 discloses in a generation step 316, a document 318, which may be a registration card or “boarding pass,” may be generated by the system 300 and provided to the participant 302. The document 318 may include an indicium 320 for indicating the particular unique identification code [registration number] 310 (from among the plurality of unique identification codes 310 in the data structure 308) linked to the participant 302.)
Aganyan and Van Wyck are analogous art because Aganyan discloses assigning a patient identifier to the patient and Van Wyck discloses generating a registration card that may include a particular unique identification code linked to the participant. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the pregnant state monitoring system as taught by Yuhara, the uberization and decentralization of healthcare services as taught by Aganyan, the electronic medical record system providing cross-patient data population and display as taught by Gray, and the uploading of photos and alerting emergency contacts of an emergency as taught by the SOS NPL with the system for onboarding participants of health services programs as taught by Van Wyck in order to improve onboarding participants of health services programs (Van Wyck para 7).
Prior Art Not Cited
Mobile GIS and Open Source Platform Based on Android: Technology for System Pregnant Women as taught by Ismaeel discloses an inexpensive and easy to develop platform that is available to millions of potential users worldwide. The platform allows pregnant women from her location (home, market, etc.) can send a help request in emergency cases.
KR 101235043 B1 as taught by Hong discloses a fetus record management system that may delete a database corresponding to the chart number of the fetus from the fetal database management unit 150 when the mother’s fetus is miscarriage or stillbirth.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/02/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112 (a) and (b) have been fully considered. In light of the amendment where the Applicant changed “newborn” to “infant,” “viable” to “birth,” and “non-viable” to “death,” the previous 112 (a) and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/02/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that there is a technical problem that is addressed by the amended claims and argues that notification of emergency contacts is often handled through separate workflows that require explicit user action, confirmation or navigation… which introduces inherent delays, creates opportunities for incomplete or inconsistent notifications, and limits the system’s ability to respond dynamically to real-time evidence… which are technical limitations stemming from how computer systems process unstructured data and coordinate downstream communication logic. Further, the Applicant later argues that the system reduces response latency, ensures that emergency contacts receive timely and contextually rich information, eliminates reliance on manual notification steps, and improves the reliability and consistency of emergency communications. Applicant's asserted "technical problem" does not appear anywhere in the as-filed and thus represents mere supposition by the Applicant. The words "passive," "incomplete," "inconsistent," “dynamic” or “dynamically,” “latency,” “contextual,” and “consistency” do not appear at all in the Specification. The word "delay" appears in reference to colors. Thus, there is no supported technological problem that the claim is solving. Finally, per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), "'claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer' does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept."
Further, the Applicant argues that the claimed invention then supplies a technical solution to the supposed technical problem. As addressed above, there is no supported technological problem that the claim is solving.. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application and thus, the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the amended limitations were considered to be a part of the abstract idea, as presented above. As such, the features argued to provide an "improvement" are part of the abstract idea. Thus, any improvement is to the abstract idea. An improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea as the abstract idea cannot integrate itself into a practical application.
Further, per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), "'claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer' does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept."
The Applicant then argues that the amended claims are not directed to a mental process, a method of organizing human activity, or any other judicial exception and further argues that the claimed operations cannot be practically performed by humans. The Examiner submits that the abstract idea was not characterized as being directed to a mental process. As such, this argument cannot be persuasive. The Applicant does not give any specific reasons for why they believe the amended claims are not directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. MPEP 2106. 04(a)(2)(II) states that a claimed invention is directed to certain methods of organizing human activity if the identified claim elements contain limitations that encompass fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The Examiner submits that the identified claim elements represent a series of rules or instructions that a person or persons, with or without the aid of a computer, would follow to organize a patient based on an emergency and create a profile or not based on delivery related details.
The Applicant further argues that the amended claims integrate any judicial exception into a practical application by automatically transmitting alerts when triggered by the upload of emergency associated image data. As addressed above, there is no supported technological problem that the claim is solving. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application and thus, the claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the amended limitations were considered to be a part of the abstract idea, as presented above. As such, the features argued to provide an "improvement" are part of the abstract idea. Thus, any improvement is to the abstract idea. An improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea as the abstract idea cannot integrate itself into a practical application.
Further, per MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), "'claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer' does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept."
The Applicant also argues that courts have repeatedly held that claims directed to rule-based or event-driven processing that alters how a computer system operates are patent-eligible. Specifically, the Applicant states that in McRO, the claims apply structured logic to input data to produce defined system states and in BASCOM and Amdocs, the inventive concept lies in the non-conventional arrangement and interaction of known components. T
In regards to McRO, the argument is not persuasive because the patent at issue in McRO dealt with an improvement in computer-related technology: automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using specific computer-implemented rules. With regard to McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., No. 2015-1080, 21 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Court cited Diehr, as follows:
“The claims in Diehr, in contrast, were patentable. The claims likewise ‘employed a ‘well-known’ mathematical equation.’ Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Diehr, MCRO, INC. v. BANDAI NAMCO GAMES AMERICA 21 450 U.S. at 177). A computer performed the calculations as part of a broader process for curing rubber, but “the process as a whole [did] not thereby become unpatentable subject matter.’ Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187. Instead, the Court looked to how the claims “used that equation in a process designed to solve a technological problem in ‘conventional industry practice.’’ Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178). When looked at as a whole, ‘the claims in Diehr were patent eligible because they improved an existing technological process, not because they were implemented on a computer.’ Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358.” McRO, pg. 21. (Emphasis added)
“When looked at as a whole, claim 1 is directed to a patentable, technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation techniques. The claim uses the limited rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (citing Diehr, 450 U.S. at 177).” McRO, pg. 27.
Therefore, a determination must be made as to the focus of the claim(s) and whether the claim(s) are drawn to an improvement in computer-related technology whether it be to the operation of a computer or a computer network per se or a set of rules that improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer. Looking at the limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. In other words, the claims simply require the performance of the abstract idea organizing patients based on their emergency and patient profiles based medical data in relation to an infant birth or death on generic computer components using conventional computer activities and unlike McRO, they are not drawn to an improvement in computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer.
In regards to BASCOM, it was the specific combination, filtering at a specific location which amounted to significantly more. Applicant’s claims do not contain similar subject matter where conventional activities are being performed in an unconventional manner, such as the filtering in BASCOM. Applicant is merely alleging the claims are similar to BASCOM and have an unconventional combination of limitations. Applicant has not expressed how their combination results in significantly more (similar to how the filtering in BASCOM was improved by filtering server side). Outside the abstract idea there is only the computer implementation of the abstract idea which is conventional activity. The limitations alone and in combination with each other do not amount to significantly more.
In regards to Amdoc, Claim 1 of ‘065 is also like the claims in BASCOM because even though the system in the '065 patent relies upon some arguably generic limitations, when all limitations are considered individually and as an ordered combination, they provide an inventive concept through the use of distributed architecture. This is similar to the design in BASCOM which permitted the invention to have a filtering tool with the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on an ISP server. The benefits in BASCOM were possible because of customizable filtering features at specific locations remote from the user. Similarly, the benefits of the '065 patent's claim 1 are possible because of the distributed, remote enhancement that produced an unconventional result — reduced data flows and the possibility of smaller databases. The claims of the instant application do not provide an unconventional result, outside the abstract idea there is only the computer implementation of the abstract idea which is conventional activity.
Thus, these arguments are not persuasive and the Examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/02/2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding the newly added limitations. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 necessitated by Applicant’s amendments is presented above.
However, the Applicant repeatedly argues that the prior art references do not “receive digital content and programmatically analyze that content to identify a condition or even based on content-derived features, rules, or models” or “automated rule-based or algorithmic response generated upon detection of a condition from digital content” or “dissemination of alerts or outputs to a predefined set of recipients based on detected conditions in the manner claimed” specifically when arguing Aganyan. Further, The Applicant argues that Robbins does not disclose, “that any uploaded content: image based or otherwise is subjected to automated image analysis, feature extraction, classification, or condition evaluation.” The Examiner notes that none of the above argued language is claimed. The amendments or previously presented claims do not disclose identifying a condition from analyzing digital content or outputting an alert based on a detected condition, or analyzing images, extracting features, classifying, or evaluating conditions. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive. However, as noted above, a new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 necessitated by Applicant’s amendments of “enable the one or more affected users to upload one or more images associated with an emergency of the one or more emergencies; and upon upload of the one or more images, automatically send an emergency alert to one or more emergency contacts associated with the one or more affected users” is presented above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA J MORICE DE VARGAS whose telephone number is (703)756-4608. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter H. Choi can be reached on (469)295-9171. 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.
/SARA JESSICA MORICE DE VARGAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681