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 1-15 are pending.
This communication is in response to the communication filed February 24, 2023.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite systems and methods for detecting and tracking individuals exhibiting symptoms of infections, which are statutory categories of inventions.
Specifically, the claims recite: receive position information of the space and a plurality of connected sensors in the space…detect whether the person exhibits the symptom of infection based at least in part on captured sensor signals…locate the person exhibiting the symptom of infection in the space…display the location of the person exhibiting the symptom of infection within the space…input the captured sensor signals…input the captured sensor signals from first and second types of sensors…input the captured sensor signals…input the captured sensor signals…the output of the first CNN model comprises the first predicted label and an associated confidence value that does not at least meet the first predetermined threshold value but at least meets a second predetermined threshold value that is less than the first predetermined threshold value, and the at least one CNN model comprises the second CNN model…input the captured sensor signals…fuse the captured sensor signals from the first and second types of sensors…wherein the output…comprises the first predicted label and an associated confidence value…input the captured sensor signals…capture sensor signals related to the one or more persons, the method comprising the steps of: requesting…infectious symptom presence information…determine whether the one or more persons in the space exhibits one or more symptoms of infection; receiving…an input from the user, wherein the input comprises a first user tolerance level…detecting whether the one or more persons exhibits the one or more symptoms of infection based at least in part on captured sensor signals…model selected based on a confidence value associated with an output of the first CNN model; wherein the confidence level is selected according to the first user tolerance level…input the captured sensor signals from a first type of sensors of the plurality of connected sensors…input the captured sensor signals from first and second types of sensors of the plurality of connected sensors to the second CNN model…input the captured sensor signals from the second type of sensors of the plurality of connected sensors to the third CNN model; receiving…an indication that at least one person of the one or more persons within the space exhibits the one or more symptoms of infection, the indication being based on the confidence level selected according to the first user tolerance level; receiving…a location; output…comprises [data or information]; changing…the first user tolerance level…; receiving a location…rendering…one route.
The limitations of the claims are interpreted as which is grouped within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas because in this case, the claims involve detecting and tracking symptoms exhibited by people by collecting data, analyzing it, and outputting the results of the collection and analysis. See MPEP 2106.04. The claims are interpreted to recite concepts relating to tracking or organizing information. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Integration into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Here, the additional elements of the claims use user interface, processor, sensors, convolutional neural network, graphical user interface, illumination device, luminaire, and mobile device.
The claims merely use the additional elements as tools to perform abstract ideas and generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The use of the additional elements as tools to implement the abstract idea and generally to link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not render the claim patent eligible, because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. Specifically, the user interface, processor, convolutional neural network, and graphical user interface may all be part of a computer or mobile device perform the steps or functions of receiving, analyzing, inputting, and outputting data (specification p. 15-17). The luminaire may be a illumination device, which may be part of a device or GUI giving a notification or indication (p. 15-16). The sensors may be any sensor devices capturing data (p. 8-11). Moreover, any suitable device may be used, such as, a mobile handheld device, mobile phone, a personal computer, a laptop, a tablet, or any suitable alternative (p. 16).
The additional elements do not show an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology, rather the additional elements perform general computing functions and do not indicate how the particular combination improves any technology or provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See Apple v. Ameranth, 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The additional elements do not use the exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease, do not apply the exception using particular machines, and do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, rather the computer elements are generally stated as to their structure and function and are only used to collect and track infection data instead of directly providing specific treatment or prophylaxis. Therefore, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the additional limitations are not indicative of materializing into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Generic computer elements recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, or conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system (Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); 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 and performing repetitive calculations); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); See MPEP 2106.05(d) and July 2015 Update: Section IV). Here, the claim limitations directed to sensor data collection and CNN analysis are similar to receiving and sending information over a network and performing repetitive calculations.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the steps of the claims amount to no more than using computer related devices to automate or implement the abstract idea for detecting and tracing individuals exhibiting symptoms of infections.
The use of a computer or processor to merely automate or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) where mere instructions to apply an exception does not render an abstract idea patent eligible). There is no indication that the additional limitations alone or in combination improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, improves another technology or technical field, or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
In conclusion, the claims are directed to the abstract idea for detecting and tracing individuals exhibiting symptoms of infections. The claims do not provide an inventive concept, because the claims do not recite additional elements or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of the claims. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and the collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an order combination, the claims are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY M. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6793 and email is jay.patel2@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAY M. PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights