DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This is a non-final office action on merits in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 03/11/2026 and the request for continued examination filed on 03/11/2026.
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
Claim 17 is cancelled. Amendments to claims 15 are acknowledged and have been carefully considered. Claims 1-16, and 18-20 are pending and considered below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/11/2026 has been entered.
Subject Matter Free of Art
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 include subject matter that is free of the cited prior art. The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
For claims 1 and 8, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the claimed combination of associating respective audio messages with different constraints defining when the wearable device is to play the respective audio messages based on different perceived states of the wearer as determined by sensors of the wearable device, and using a perceived state of the wearer to select and cause playback of the corresponding audio message. Specifically, the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest the recited claims where respective constraints are associated with different audio messages and different perceived wearer states and the corresponding audio message is selected for playback based on the particular perceived state of the wearer.
For claim 15, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, detecting a state of the wearer that satisfies a constraint associated with one of multiple audio messages by receiving sensor data from sensors of the wearable device, processing the sensor data using one or more kinematic algorithms to track a position of a wrist of the wearer to identify the state of the wearer, determining the state of the wearer based on the processed sensor data, determining that the identified state satisfies a corresponding constraint, and playing the corresponding audio message based on the detected state.
The closest prior art of record includes 1) Hugg et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2012/018546 A1), referred to hereinafter as Hugg, and 2) Howard et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/014654 A1), referred to hereinafter as Howard.
Hugg teaches an voice messaging system in which audio messages are received and stored by a server system, a recipient device is notified that a message is available, and the recipient device subsequently requests and downloads the stored audio message. Hugg further teaches storage of audio messages in cloud storage and transmission of stored messages in response to requests from recipient clients. However, Hugg fails to teach or suggest associating different audio messages with constraints based on different sensor determined perceived states of a wearer and selecting or causing playback of a corresponding audio message based on the particular perceived state of the wearer. Hugg further fails to teach or suggest processing sensor data using kinematic algorithms to track the position of a wearer's wrist to identify the wearer's state.
Howard teaches a wrist worn wearable device capable of detecting a physical state or event of a wearer, such as a fall and subsequent nonresponsiveness, and transmitting or playing an audio message associated with the detected event. Howard further teaches wearable biometric and motion sensors, including accelerometers, gyroscopic sensors, magnetometers, and GPS sensors, and teaches that detected motion may affect a state, output, or operation of the wearable device. However, Howard fails to teach or suggest the claimed arrangement of different audio messages having respective constraints corresponding to different perceived states of the wearer and selecting the corresponding audio message for playback based on the particular perceived state. Further, although Howard teaches motion sensors and detection of physical events such as falls, Howard fails to teach or suggest processing sensor data using one or more kinematic algorithms to track a position of the wrist of the wearer to identify the state of the wearer, determining that the identified state satisfies one of respective message specific constraints, and playing the corresponding audio message based on satisfaction of that constraint.
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 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Under step 1, the analysis is based on MPEP 2106.03, and claims 1-7, 15-16, and 18-20 are drawn to a method, claims 8-14 are drawn to a sever system. Thus, each claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories (i.e., useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of 35 U.S.C. §101.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recites as a whole a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) because the claim recites a method that allows users to receive a plurality of audio messages of one or more users, the plurality of audio messages comprising a first audio message and a second audio message, wherein each audio message of the plurality of audio messages is to be played to a wearer of a wearable device; for the first audio message, identifying one or more first constraints associated with the first audio message, wherein the one or more first constraints define when the wearable device is to play the first audio message based on a first perceived state of the wearer of the wearable device; for the second audio message, identifying one or more second constraints associated with the second audio message, wherein the one or more second constraints define when the wearable device is to play the second audio message based on a second perceived state of the wearer of the wearable device, the second perceived state of the wearer being different from the first perceived state of the wearer; and, responsive to receiving the request, causing one of the first audio message or the second audio message to be played to the wearer of the wearable device based on the perceived state of the wearer of the wearable device. This is a method of managing personal behavior or interactions between people by establishing conditions governing when different messages are provided to a person based on the person's perceived state and providing a corresponding message according to those conditions. Specifically, the claim limitations establish rules that relate to the interaction between the one or more users who generate the audio messages and the wearer who receives the audio messages by specifying when a particular message is to be provided based on the perceived state of the wearer. Therefore, the claim manages an interaction between people and the types of messages or instructions to a person according to predetermined conditions associated with that person's perceived state, which falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The recitation of an API server and gateway server does not that the claim out of the grouping of managing personal behavior or interactions between people, as the components merely provide a computer for carrying out the message management activity. Accordingly, the limitations recite a certain method of organizing human activity and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Independent claim 8 recites identical or nearly identical steps with respect to claim 1 (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this claim is therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Claim 15 recites as a whole a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) because the claim recites a method that allows a user of a client device to generate an audio message to be played back at a wearable device; identify constraints for playing back the audio message, wherein the constraints define when the wearable device is to play the audio message based on a perceived state of a wearer of the wearable device; associate one or more second constraints with a second audio message, wherein the one or more second constraints define when the wearable device is to play the second audio message based on a second perceived state of the wearer of the wearable device, the second perceived state of the wearer being different from the perceived state of the wearer; determine that a state of the wearer satisfies one of the constraints associated with the audio message or the one or more second constraints associated with the second audio message; and, upon detecting the state, play one of the audio message or the second audio message to the wearer of the wearable device. This is a method of managing personal behavior or interactions between people by establishing conditions that govern when different messages are to be provided to a person based on the person's state and providing the corresponding message when the person's state satisfies an associated condition. Specifically, the claimed limitations establish rules governing the interaction between the user who generates the audio message and the wearer who receives the audio message by specifying when a certain message is to be provided based on the state of the wearer. Therefore, the claim manages an interaction between people and the messages or instructions to a person according to predetermined conditions associated with that person's state, which falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. The nominal recitation that these activities are performed by a wearable device does not take the claim outside the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, as the wearable device is merely provides the means through which the message management activity is carried out. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Claim 15 also recites the limitations of detecting a state of the wearer that satisfies at least one of the constraints associated with the audio message or the one or more second constraints associated with the second audio message; determining the state of the wearer based on the processed sensor data; and determining that the state satisfies one of the constraints associated with the audio message or the one or more second constraints associated with the second audio message. These limitations, as drafted, recite observation, evaluation, and judgment of information, which include identifying a state of a person and evaluating whether the identified state satisfies a predetermined condition associated with a message. These evaluations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are processes that can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a person provided with information of the wearer's state could evaluate that information to identify the wearer's state, compare the identified state with predetermined constraints associated with respective messages, and determine which constraint is satisfied. Even when considering the “by the wearable device” language, the recited evaluation and comparison are not removed from the mental processes grouping because the claim requires a wearable device to perform the operations. The wearable device is nominally recited as the mechanism for performing the evaluation of the wearer's state and determining whether that state satisfies a predetermined constraint. The recitation of a wearable device does not remove the limitations from the mental processes grouping. Therefore, the claim recites a mental process, which is an abstract idea.
The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Under Step 2A Prong Two
The claimed limitations, as per claim 1, include:
receiving, by an application programming interface (API) server of a server system, a plurality of audio messages generated at one or more client devices of one or more users, the plurality of audio messages comprising a first audio message and a second audio message, wherein each audio message of the plurality of audio messages is to be played to a wearer of a wearable device;
for the first audio message, identifying, by the API server, one or more first constraints associated with the first audio message, wherein the one or more first constraints define when the wearable device is to play the first audio message based on a first perceived state of the wearer of the wearable device as determined by one or more sensors of the wearable device;
for the second audio message, identifying, by the API server, one or more second constraints associated with the second audio message, wherein the one or more second constraints define when the wearable device is to play the second audio message based on a second perceived state of the wearer of the wearable device as determined by one or more sensors of the wearable device, the second perceived state of the wearer different from the first perceived state of the wearer;
saving, by the API server, the first audio message, the second audio message, the one or more first constraints, and the one or more second constraints in a cloud storage environment;
detecting, by a gateway server of the server system, that the cloud storage environment includes the first audio message and the second audio message;
based on the detecting, prompting, by the gateway server, the wearable device that the first audio message and the second audio message are available for download;
receiving, by the gateway server, a request from the wearable device for one of the first audio message or the second audio message, the request comprising a perceived state of the wearer selected from a group comprising the first perceived state of the wearer and the second perceived state of the wearer; and
responsive to receiving the request, causing, by the gateway server, one of the first audio message or the second audio message to be played to the wearer of the wearable device based on the perceived state of the wearer of the wearable device.
The claimed limitations, as per claim 15, include:
receiving, by a wearable device, an indication from a server system that a user of a client device has generated an audio message to be played back at the wearable device;
prompting, by the wearable device, the server system to provide the audio message to the wearable device;
receiving, by the wearable device, the audio message from the server system;
parsing, by the wearable device, the audio message to identify constraints for playing back the audio message, wherein the constraints define when the wearable device is to play the audio message based on a perceived state of a wearer of the wearable device as determined by one or more sensors of the wearable device;
saving, by the wearable device, the audio message and the constraints in local storage, wherein local storage further comprises: one or more second constraints associated with the second audio message, wherein the one or more second constraints define when the wearable device is to play the second audio message based on a second perceived state of the wearer of the wearable device as determined by one or more sensors of the wearable device, the second perceived state of the wearer different from the perceived state of the wearer;
detecting, by the wearable device, a state of the wearer that satisfies at least one of the constraints associated with the audio message or the one or more second constraints associated with the second audio message, the detecting comprising:
receiving sensor data from sensors of the wearable device,
processing the sensor data using one or more kinematic algorithms to track a position of a wrist of the wearer to identify the state of the wearer,
determining the state of the wearer based on the processed sensor data, and determining that the state satisfies one of the constraints associated with the audio message or the one or more second constraints associated with the second audio message; and
upon detecting the state, playing, by the wearable device, one of the audio message or the second audio message to a wearer of the wearable device.
Examiner Note: underlined elements indicate additional elements of the claimed invention identified as performing the steps of the claimed invention.
The judicial exception expressed in claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of managing personal behavior or interactions between people by establishing conditions of when different messages are to be provided to a person based on the person's perceived state and providing a corresponding message according to those conditions in a computer environment (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). The claimed computer components (i.e., an application programming interface (API) server of a server system, one or more client devices, a gateway server of the server system, and a wearable device) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform a process of receiving and managing audio messages, identifying conditions that govern when the messages are to be provided, and causing a corresponding message to be provided based on the perceived state of the wearer. The claim does not recite an improvement to the functioning of the API server, gateway server, client device, or computer technology, but uses these components as tools for carrying out the abstract message management process. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The judicial exception expressed in claim 15 is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of managing personal behavior or interactions between people by establishing conditions that govern when different messages are to be provided to a person based on the person's state and providing the corresponding message when the person's state satisfies an associated condition in a computer environment (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)). The claimed computer components (i.e., performing the recited operations by a wearable device and parsing, by the wearable device, the audio message to identify constraints for playing back the audio message) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform a process of identifying and applying conditions that govern when particular messages are to be provided to a wearer based on the wearer's state. Specifically, the claim does not recite a particular parsing technique or an improvement to wearable device technology, but instead uses the wearable device and its parsing as tools for identifying the constraints used in carrying out the abstract message management process. Simply implementing the abstract idea using a generic computer or device is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 15 further recites the additional element of “processing the sensor data using one or more kinematic algorithms to track a position of a wrist of the wearer to identify the state of the wearer.” This limitation does not meaningfully integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claim invokes the one or more kinematic algorithms at a high level of generality as a tool for obtaining the desired results of tracking a wrist position and identifying a state of the wearer. Specifically, the claim does not recite a particular kinematic algorithm, how the wrist position is calculated from the sensor data, or a particular technique in which the tracked wrist position is used to identify the state of the wearer. Instead, the limitation functionally recites the desired results of processing sensor data to track wrist position and identify the wearer's state, which is then used in carrying out the abstract process of determining whether the wearer's state satisfies a constraint associated with a particular audio message. The limitation uses kinematic processing as a tool to supply information for application of the judicial exception instead of reciting a specific improvement to sensor processing, kinematic tracking, or operation of the wearable device. Accordingly, this additional element, whether considered individually or in combination with the other additional elements, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The judicial exception expressed in claims 1 and 15 are not integrated into a practical application. The abstract idea is merely carried out in a particular technical environment or field (i.e., a sensor wearable device environment in which a perceived state of a wearer is used to control the audio messages), but the claim fails to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements that are carried out in the technical environment include the limitation that the first and second perceived states of the wearer are determined by one or more sensors of the wearable device. This limitation limits the claimed message management process to the technological environment of a sensor wearable device without reciting a specific type of sensor or technological technique by which the perceived state of the wearer is determined. Instead, the claim recites the sensor determination at a high level of generality and uses the resulting perceived state as information for determining which audio message is to be provided to the wearer. Therefore, the additional limitation does not improve the use of the sensors or wearable device, but instead generally links the abstract idea to the particular technological environment in which it is performed. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The judicial exception expressed in claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of saving the first audio message, the second audio message, the one or more first constraints, and the one or more second constraints in a cloud storage environment; detecting that the cloud storage environment includes the first audio message and the second audio message; based on the detecting, prompting the wearable device that the first audio message and the second audio message are available for download; and receiving a request from the wearable device for one of the first audio message or the second audio message, the request comprising a perceived state of the wearer selected from a group comprising the first perceived state of the wearer and the second perceived state of the wearer. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of storing, detecting the availability of, communicating the availability of, and receiving a request for information used in carrying out the abstract message management process) and amount to merely storing, transmitting, retrieving, and collecting information (including data gathering) before or ancillary to performance of the judicial exception, which are forms of insignificant extra solution activities (see MPEP 2106.05 (g)). The claim does not recite any particular technological improvement in which the audio messages or constraints are stored, detected, communicated, requested, or retrieved. Accordingly, even when considered in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The judicial exception expressed in claim 15 is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements of receiving an indication from a server system; prompting the server system to provide the audio message to the wearable device; receiving the audio message from the server system; saving the audio message and the constraints in local storage; and receiving sensor data from sensors of the wearable device. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as general means of collecting and storing information used in the message management process) and amount to merely gathering information as input to the abstract idea and storing the audio message and constraints for subsequent use, which are forms of insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05 (g)). Specifically, receiving the indication, receiving the audio message, receiving the sensor data, and prompting the server system merely facilitates transmission of the audio message to the wearable device. Also, saving the audio message and constraints in local storage merely stores information for subsequent use and does not recite an improvement in local storage technology. Accordingly, even when considered in combination, these additional elements facilitate the collection and storage of information used in the judicial exception and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Under step 2B
Claims 1 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of managing personal behavior or interactions between people by establishing conditions governing when different messages are to be provided to a person based on the person’s perceived state and providing a corresponding message according to those conditions in a computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the abstract idea is merely carried out in a technical environment or field, however fails to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea.
For claim 1, under Step 2B, the additional elements of saving the first audio message, the second audio message, the one or more first constraints, and the one or more second constraints in a cloud storage environment; detecting that the cloud storage environment includes the first audio message and the second audio message; based on the detecting, prompting the wearable device that the first audio message and the second audio message are available for download; and receiving a request from the wearable device for one of the first audio message or the second audio message, the request comprising a perceived state of the wearer selected from a group comprising the first perceived state of the wearer and the second perceived state of the wearer, have been evaluated. As noted in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016), merely collecting information for analysis without a technological improvement does not add significantly more to an abstract idea. The recited claim of receiving the request comprising the perceived state of the wearer amounts to no more than collecting information before performing the message selection and delivery process and does not provide an inventive concept sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Additionally, as noted in Wang et al., Efficient and Secure Storage for Outsourced Data: A Survey, 2016, Data Sci. Eng, 1(3):178–188 (Year: 2016); Yang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2018/0096063 A1); and Kelly, Eric, How to Enable Notifications Support on Your Alexa-Enabled Product, 2017, Amazon.com, pages 1-2 (Year: 2017), respectively, merely saving the audio messages and associated constraints in a cloud storage environment, detecting that the cloud storage environment includes the messages, and prompting the wearable device that the messages are available for download amount to routine data storage, detection, and communication functions performed using the recited computer components. These limitations do not impose a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception or recite a particular technological improvement in the operation of the cloud storage environment, server system, gateway server, or wearable device. Instead, the limitations facilitate the storage, availability, and transfer of the information used to carry out the abstract idea. Considered individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Therefore, claim 1 does not recite an inventive concept and is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements comprise generic computing components (i.e., a wearable device and parsing, by the wearable device, the audio message) performing well understood functions of receiving, parsing, processing, storing, and communicating information in the abstract message management process. The claim does not recite an improvement to the functioning of the wearable device, but instead invokes these components and functions as tools for carrying out the judicial exception. Also, as noted in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016), merely collecting information for subsequent analysis and processing without a technological improvement does not add significantly more to an abstract idea. The recited claim of receiving an indication from the server system, receiving of the audio message, and receiving of sensor data amount to no more than collecting information for subsequent evaluation of the wearer's state and determination of whether that state satisfies a constraint associated with a audio message. These information gathering operations do not provide an inventive concept or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, as shown in Homanyi et al., Distributed audio recorder using smart phones and proximity connections, 2011, Computer Standards & Interfaces, 33, 315–324 (Year: 2011), storing audio messages and associated information in local device storage was a well understood, routine, and conventional data storage function. Accordingly, the limitation of saving the audio message and associated constraints in local storage allows local storage for its ordinary function of storing information for subsequent retrieval and use. Additionally, the limitation of “processing the sensor data using one or more kinematic algorithms to track a position of a wrist of the wearer to identify the state of the wearer” does not provide an inventive concept because the limitation invokes kinematic processing at a high level of generality as a tool for achieving the desired results of tracking the wearer's wrist position and identifying the wearer's state (see MPEP 2106. 05(f)). The claim does not recite a specific kinematic algorithm, computational operation performed on the sensor data, or method of how the sensor data is processed to calculate the wrist position. Instead, the limitation recites the desired outcome of deriving the wearer's state from sensor data through wrist position tracking without specifying the particular technological operations by which the recited wrist position tracking and state identification are accomplished. Therefore, the limitation does not recite an improvement. Accordingly, viewed individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent eligible subject matter and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014); Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Claims 7, 14, and 18-20 recite no further additional elements, and only further narrow the abstract idea. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application for reasons similar to those explained above, and do not amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea for reasons similar to those explained above.
Claims 2-6, 9-13, 16 recite the additional elements of by the gateway server (claims 2, 3, 9, and 10), downloading the first audio message or the second audio message from the cloud storage environment; and providing the first audio message or the second audio message to the wearable device over a network (claims 2 and 9), by the API server (claims 4-6, and 11-13), decoding the first audio message received from the client device; converting the first audio message from a first format to a second format; and uploading the converted first audio message in the cloud storage environment (claims 4 and 11), uploading, an original version of the first audio message to the cloud storage environment (claims 5 and 12), saving storage location information associated with storage locations of the first audio message and the second audio message in the cloud storage environment in a locally accessible database (claims 6 and 13), by the wearable device (claim 16), receiving a communication from a beacon co-located with the wearable device (claim 16), and parsing the communication to identify location information contained in the communication (claim 16), However, these additional element amount to implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing and networking components as tools or performing insignificant extra solution activities. As such, these additional elements, when considered individually or in combination with the previously identified additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore, the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see Remarks/Amendments submitted 03/11/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-16, and 18-20 have been carefully considered and are addressed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant states that the Office improperly isolated the hardware components from the remaining limitations and failed to evaluate the additional elements in combination. However, the claims have been considered as a whole, including the API server, gateway server, cloud storage environment, wearable device, sensors, audio messages, associated constraints, and perceived states. When considered individually and as an ordered combination, these additional elements implement the abstract message management process by receiving and storing audio messages and associated constraints, detecting and communicating the availability of the messages, receiving information identifying the perceived state of the wearer, and causing the corresponding message to be provided based on that state. Therefore, the rejection does not rely on the generic recitation of the individual hardware components but instead the claimed combination uses the recited computing components to implement the rules governing state dependent message delivery without reciting an improvement to the functioning of the computer components.
Applicant also states that the claim provides a technical solution to deficiencies of conventional reminder systems by considering the wearer's current state when determining when a reminder should be provided. Claim 1 and 15 do not recite a particular sensor or sensor data or technological technique for determining the first or second perceived state. Instead, the claims recite at a high level of generality that the perceived states are “determined by one or more sensors of the wearable device” and uses the resulting perceived state as information for determining which audio message is provided. Accordingly, the sensor limitation does not recite an improvement to sensor operation or state determination technology, but instead generally links the abstract state dependent message management process to the technological environment of a sensor wearable device.
Lastly, Applicant's statement on the allocation of functions between the API server and gateway server is also unpersuasive. Although the claim implements functions among an API server, gateway server, cloud storage environment, and wearable device, the API server receives and stores messages and constraints, and the gateway server detects message availability, communicates the availability, receives a request containing perceived state information, and causes the corresponding message to be provided. The claim does not recite a particular improvement in server or cloud storage operation or server to wearable device communications resulting from these functions. Instead, the components perform information receiving, storage, detection, and retrieval functions that allow implementation of the state dependent message delivery rules. Accordingly, even when the additional elements are considered individually and as an ordered combination, they do not impose a meaningful technological limitation on the judicial exception sufficient to integrate the exception into a practical application, and Applicant's arguments do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Regarding the rejection of claim 1-16, and 18-20, the Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments in light of the present amendments and change in scope of the claims in regards to the prior art rejections, based on the current available arts, the art rejections are withdrawn, therefore no prior art rejection is provided.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Karp et al. (International Publication WO/2015200342 A1) teaches systems and methods to provide messages to an API to request or submit data and select between REST host and a subscription based API host, wherein the message enables creating, deleting, and modifying smart device data (such as hazard detector information) stored in a data model accessible by the API.
Natauri (U.S. Patent 11189160) teaches a system that detects a safety activation event, records media and location data via sensors, communicates with a paired mobile device to transfer timestamped primary and secondary media along with location data to a remote safety server for alert processing and notification.
Deutsch (U.S. Publication 2020/0320851 A1) teaches remote monitoring of a user’s well-being by using natural voice-activated smart home devices to generate a help push notification on a caregiver’s phone, triggered by sensor detecting a potential fall, with a cloud-based speck recognition service processing natural language commands to send audible or text alters to designated recipients.
Gordon et al. (U.S. publication 2019/0281389) teaches a computer-implemented method that enables a wearable audio device to detect nearby geographic locations associated with localized audio messages, determine which message has the highest priority, and prompt the user to initiate playback of that message.
Gordon et al. (U.S. publication 2019/0278554) teaches a software tool that includes pre-coded API sensor modules that retrieve sensor data from a mobile device and use it to trigger audio playback through a dedicated audio module.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYRA R LAGOY whose telephone number is (703)756-1773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571)272-6702. 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.
/K.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights