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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 – 14 were originally filed.
In the preliminary amendment dated 11/22/2025, the following has occurred: Claims 1 – 14 have been canceled; Claims 15 – 25 have been added.
Claims 15 – 25 are pending.
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 15 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claims, understood as a whole, recites subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 1 – 20), machine (claims 21 – 25) which recite the abstract idea steps of
logging time resolved presence information for persons being present in a portion of a building by identifying presence of mobile electronic devices associated with a respective one of the persons in the portion of the building,
determining an acoustical parameter related to acoustical damping present in the portion of the building;
recording individual sound pressure levels over time originating from speech from different persons being present in the portion of the building;
registering whether a person being present in the portion of the building was infected by a disease while being in the portion of the building; and
upon a person being infected by the disease while present in the portion of the building, determining the airborne and/or aerosol pathogens risk exposure as a function of the recorded sound pressure levels over time and the determined acoustical parameter.
These steps of 15 – 25, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the computer implemented language, logging in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. Similarly, the limitation of determining an acoustical parameter, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the processor language, registering in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These steps of 15 – 25, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner understands the claimed invention, as a whole, in light of the Specification. The Specification begins with on paragraph , “The present invention relates to determining an airborne and/or aerosol pathogen risk exposure.” For example, Publication paragraph 38 begins with, “In line with the present invention the mobile electronic devices 204 may also be used to determine an airborne and/or aerosol pathogen risk exposure.”
It should be emphasized that the Examiner understands the claimed invention as a whole in light of the Specification. The Specification does not describe the invention as a technological improvement. The Specification does not describe the invention as improving the functioning of a computer. The result of the invention is data that has a potential application and not a practical application.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 16 – 21 and 22 – 25, reciting particular aspects of how pressure analysis may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of computer implemented me amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of logging and recording amounts to mere data gathering, recitation of determining an acoustical parameter amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 16 – 21 and 22 – 25, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. 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 and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as claims 15 – 25; logging, determining, recording, registering e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i))
Additional Elements
Computer – paragraph 44 circuitry may be comprised in one or more electronic mobile devices 204 and/or the server 106.
Microphone – paragraph 18 The mobile electronic device may comprise one or more of: a mobile phone, a smart watch, a laptop, and a tablet.
Wireless – paragraphs 25, 36 wireless communication with the mobile electronic device.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 16 – 21 and 22 – 25, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, recording, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a written description rejection. The Applicant does not show possession by describing the required algorithm.
Claims 15 and 21 include the limitation, “determine the airborne and/or aerosol pathogens risk exposure as a function of the recorded individual sound pressure levels over time and the determined acoustical parameter.” The required “function” is not disclosed.
The rejection regards possession and not whether a solution can be determined. What did the Applicant posses at the time of the invention?
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Examiner cannot find relevant art to read on the claimed invention. This should not be understood as a notice of allowability. Rather, the Examiner needs more information regarding how the risk function is calculated and may then apply relevant art later.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Neal R Sereboff whose telephone number is (571)270-1373. The examiner can normally be reached M - T, M - F 8AM - 6PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571)272-6773. 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.
/NEAL SEREBOFF/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights