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 9-20 have been reviewed and addressed below. Claims 1-8 has been cancelled.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
With respect to applicants amendments filed on 7-21-26 to the claims, they are entered and are addressed below.
Applicant argues that a claim is eligible if it "reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field." August Memorandum, page 4. As the August Memorandum explains, "[a]n important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology or a technical field is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome and that and the present claims describe inherently technical solutions to overcome an inherently technical problem (generating training data, which does not otherwise exist, such that a new machine learning model can be trained). Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of different types of available data in performing an analysis are still part of the abstract idea, the amendments further define how the model is trained, however these amended limitations are still part of the abstract idea, the analysis is part of how a model is trained, the model itself does not improve the computer technology itself rather it uses the computer elements to execute the abstract idea.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea, Applicant submits that it is clear that the claimed techniques provide a substantial and practical technological improvement that improves the functionality of the technology and computer itself. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitations can fall under mathematical elements and mental process. The receiving, analyzing and presenting analyzed data can still fall under mental process similar to that of Electric Power Group V Alstom.
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 9-20 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.
Step 1:
Claims 9-20 are drawn to method, system and non-transitory computer-readable medium, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One:
Independent claims 9, 15 recite “training a first machine learning model for a first residential facility, comprising: determining a set of historical resident characteristics for a prior shift at the first residential facility;”, “accessing a set of charts recorded for the prior shift, wherein the set of charts indicate actions performed by staff during the prior shift to assist residents of the first residential facility”, “inferring a prior staffing of the prior shift based on the indicated actions in the set of charts”, “inferring whether the prior staffing for the prior shift was adequate based on an assistance events-to-staff ratio reflected in the set of charts”, “in response to determining that the prior staffing was inadequate, artificially adjusting the prior staffing”, “training the first machine learning model by using the set of historical resident characteristics as input to the first machine learning model and using the artificially adjusted prior staffing as target output for the first machine learning model”, “receiving a set of resident characteristics for a set of residents residing in first residential facility”, “generating a future staffing allocation for the first residential facility by processing the set of resident characteristics using first trained machine learning models, the future staffing allocation indicating a number of caregivers to care for the set of residents during a future window of time”, “generating a resource prediction comprising at least one of medical resource allocation or a dietary resource allocation by processing the set of resident characteristics using second trained machine learning models”, “initiating medication of at least one of medical resources or dietary resources of the first residential facility based on the resource prediction”, “initiating modification of future staffing of the first residential facility based on future staffing allocation comprising adjusting a number of caregivers scheduled to care for the set of residents during the future window of time”.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas additionally the elements of machine learning models can fall under Mathematical Concepts (machine learning training). The elements of analyzing receiving and analyzing data can also fall under mental process. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including “machine learning”, “non-transitory computer readable program code”, which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims recite the additional element of “receive a set of residential characteristics”, which is considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed displaying limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do 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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
paragraph 211 that “methods disclosed herein comprise one or more steps or actions for achieving the methods. The method steps and/or actions may be interchanged with one another without departing from the scope of the claims. In other words, unless a specific order of steps or actions is specified, the order and/or use of specific steps and/or actions may be modified without departing from the scope of the claims. Further, the various operations of methods described above may be performed by any suitable means capable of performing the corresponding functions. The means may include various hardware and/or software component(s) and/or module(s), including, but not limited to a circuit, an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), or processor”.
The claims recite the additional element of “receive a set of residential characteristics”, which is considered limitations directed to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not amount to an inventive concept because the limitations do not impose meaningful limits on the claim such that is it not nominally or tangentially related to the invention. In the claimed context, the claimed displaying limitations are incidental to the performance of the recited abstract idea. See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 10-14, 16-20 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached on (571) 270-1360. 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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
