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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/2/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In response to applicant’s amendment received on 3/2/26, all requested changes to the claims have been entered. Claims 1-15 were previously and are currently pending, of which 13-15 are withdrawn for being directed to nonelected Group II.
Response to Remarks/Arguments
Regarding the priority objection, the Examiner suggests contacting support at the Patent Electronic Business Center regarding the electronic priority document exchange program (www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/international-protection/electronic-priority-document-exchange-pdx). It would appear the document code for a patent filed in the UK should be in the “YYNNNNN.X” format, see the above website for guidance. However on the most recent ADS filed on 12/9/25 the document is listed as “GB2202964.9”. In other words it would appear the “GB” included with “Application Number” of the foreign document on the ADS is not required, it’s already provided under “Country”, and that is potentially causing the issue. An updated ADS would be required to correct that.
Regarding the 112(f) interpretation of “processing arrangement” the applicant agrees, see the remarks filed on 3/2/26, that the limitation invokes interpretation under 112(f). The applicant’s also argues that structure associated with the term “processing arrangement” would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as referring to a “computing processor”. The arguments are partially persuasive, and the Examiner further notes that the structure would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art as referring to a “computing processor” running a program/instructions configured to execute the disclosed functionality. In other words, the limitation is considered a “computer-implemented means-plus-function”, where the structure is considered a computer or processor AND the algorithm disclosed in the specification for performing the function. Therefore the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) and lacks written description under 112(a) (See MPEP 2181(II)(B)). In this case, the Examiner finds that the specification does not sufficiently disclose the algorithm for performing at least the functions of “predict a health condition of the subject” and “monitor a progression of the health condition”. Therefore, the 112(a)/112(b) rejections are herein maintained for new reasons as discussed below.
Regarding the pending prior art rejections of independent claims 1 and 7, the applicant argues that neither the prior art of Deutsch nor Brandt discloses the limitations of:
“receive an input by a user, on the graphical user interface of the user device, for requesting a desired vehicle amongst the plurality of medically equipped vehicles to ride the subject to a destination after ensuring that the vehicle comprises one or more desired medical equipment to support the health condition of the subject”;
“an image capturing arrangement including at least one imaging device configured to:- capture an image data of the subject, wherein the image data comprises one or more skeletal poses of the subject”; and
“a processing arrangement operatively coupled to the wearable device and the user device, the processing arrangement configured to, based on the real-time medical data, continually collect several data points from the wearable device, the microphone, the image capturing arrangement and the real-time location tracker, and to, predict…monitor…generate an alert…and…advise”.
Regarding limitation “A”, the applicants arguments are not persuasive. The prior art of Brandt (paragraphs 91-93) discloses that a user has the ability to visibly ensure a vehicle is not already in use for medical transport before making a request, thereby ensuring the vehicle is available (i.e. comprises desired medical equipment) to support the health condition of the subject.
Regarding limitation “B”, the applicants arguments are not persuasive. The prior art of Deutsch (figure 1, element 200) discloses that the image captured comprises a human in a pose corresponding to a “skeletal pose” based on the BRI of the term.
However, regarding limitation “C”, the applicants arguments are persuasive and the pending 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of independent claims 1 and 7 are herein withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/28/25.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND on 3/3/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has NOT filed a certified copy of the GB2202964.9 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. For further guidance, contact support at the Patent Electronic Business Center regarding the electronic priority document exchange program (www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/international-protection/electronic-priority-document-exchange-pdx).
Claim Interpretation – 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“user device configure to:…display…receive…” in claims 1 and 7 (see page 23 of the originally filed specification for the corresponding structure)
“real-time location tracker utilizing a navigation system to track…” in claims 1 and 7 (see page 20 of the originally filed spec for the corresponding structure).
“image capturing arrangement including at least one imaging device configured to: capture…provide…” in claims 1 and 7 (see pages 21-22 of the originally filed spec for the corresponding structure)
“processing arrangement…configured to…collect...predict…monitor…generate…and advise…” in claims 1 and 7 (one of ordinary skill would understand the structure to be a computer/processor programmed to perform the algorithm disclosed in the specification, however the specification does not provide a sufficient algorithm for performing all the functions, see the 112(a/b) rejections below).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-12 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.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 7, the limitation “processing arrangement” invokes interpretation of the limitation under 112(f), which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be a computer/processor programmed to perform the algorithm disclosed in the specification. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding algorithm to perform the functions of “predict a health condition of the subject” and “monitor a progression of the health condition”. Therefore the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lacking adequate written description because the specification does not describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2181(II)(B), 2161.01(I) and 2185).
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-12 are rejected by the virtue of their dependency upon rejected claims 1 and 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding independent claims 1 and 7, the limitation “processing arrangement” invokes interpretation of the limitation under 112(f), which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be a computer/processor programmed to perform the algorithm disclosed in the specification. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding algorithm to perform the functions of “predict a health condition of the subject” and “monitor a progression of the health condition”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph (see MPEP 2181(II)(B) and 2185).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Dependent claims 2-6 and 8-12 are rejected by the virtue of their dependency upon rejected claims 1 and 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON W CARTER whose telephone number is (571)272-7445. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm (Mon - Fri).
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/AARON W CARTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661