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 .
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed March 2, 2026, is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 12 have been amended. Claims 3-8 and 10 have been canceled. Claims 1, 2, 9, and 11-18 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 2, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A response is provided below in bold where appropriate.
Applicant argues 35 USC §101 Rejection, starting pg. 8 of Remarks:
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. Q 101, Applicant respectfully traverses this ground of rejection in part and submits that the present amendment overcomes this ground of rejection.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims allegedly are directed to an abstract idea in the category of certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice.
However, amended Claim 1 recites:
An automated, event-driven, and triggered system for long-term care risk mitigation associated with detected immediate care needs of risk-exposed individuals in case of becoming a long-term care-receiver, the automated system providing a secured multi-step trigger and detection cycle for a risk-exposed individual with the detected immediate care needs based on measured sensory measuring data thereby mitigating possibly occurring long-term care needs by means of the automated system triggered by threshold values for a state of disability of the risk-exposed individual measured as having a predetermined condition, the state of disability being characterized by a definable set of risk-exposed individual measuring parameters, and individual measuring parameter values being captured and monitored by the automated system, the automated system comprising:
one or more sensors configured to detect the individual measuring parameters of the risk-exposed individual; and
one or more processors being configured to:
receive the individual measuring parameters of the risk-exposed individual detected by the one or more sensor and determine that the state of disability of the risk-exposed individual has reached the predetermined condition based on the individual measuring parameters reach or exceed the threshold values for the state of disability,
monitor a dataflow pathway of the risk-exposed individual by capturing risk-related health-related measuring data and asset-related data in different dataflow pathways associated with personal data of the risk-exposed individual periodically or within predefined time frames, and
trigger the long-term care risk mitigation by means of an event-driven risk-exposed individual trigger providing the secured multi-step trigger cycle, wherein when the predetermined condition of the state of disability is triggered in combination with an age-related individual measuring parameter having a predefined threshold value amounting to a number of years, the one or more processors are configured to cause an up-front monetary amount generated by the automated system to be transferred to the automated system, and the long-term care risk mitigation is triggered by the automated system upon detecting transfer of the up-front monetary amount to the automated system, wherein
the event-driven risk-exposed individual trigger includes a staged multi-tier structure triggering, over a period of time, threshold values of a first and second set of individual measuring parameters in an autogenic dataflow pathway of the risk-exposed individual,
for each long-term care risk mitigation, long-term care mitigation data are held in a persistence storage of the automated system and include at least one assigned relationship between the risk-exposed individual, an asset of the risk-exposed individual, and a remedial measure ratio dependent on the asset of the risk-exposed individual, the at least one assigned relationship including the up-front monetary amount,
the remedial measures include transferred monetary remedial measures, and transferal of the monetary remedial measures is limited to a monetary amount determined by a predefined percentage of a market value of the asset, the predefined percentage is set to equal or less than 50% to 80% of the measured market value of the asset,
the market value of the asset is measured at a time point of establishing the assigned relationship between the risk-exposed individual and the asset of the risk-exposed individual, and is remeasured at a time point of detecting the state of disability,
the staged multi-tier structure includes a first trigger stage triggering on the state of disability of the risk- exposed individual by a first set of the individual measuring parameter values captured in the dataflow pathway of the risk-exposed individual,
the first set of the individual measuring parameter values are segmentable in categories of individual measuring data at least including first trigger threshold parameter values providing a definable measure for individual physical functional status parameters and current cognitive and sensory functional status parameters and prospective functional status parameters including physical and/or cognitive and sensory parameters,
the first trigger threshold parameter values are triggered by means of monitored and measured values of the first set of the individual measuring parameter values in the autogenic dataflow pathway of the risk-exposed individual departing from averaged historical parameter values and their value variations in time,
upon detection of the state of disability based on the first set of the individual measuring parameter values, covering by means of remedial measures is activated by electronic signal transmission to an automated risk-cover structure of the automated system being controllable by the electronic signal transmission and by transferring the remedial measures to the risk-exposed individual,
the multi-tier trigger structure includes a second stage trigger triggering a second set of the individual measuring parameter values captured in the dataflow pathway of the risk-exposed individual based on second trigger threshold parameter values providing a definable measure for indicators for an occurred death of the risk- exposed individual or a sale of the asset assigned to the risk-exposed individual,
the second stage trigger is dynamically adapted by means of an operating module based on time-correlated incidence data indicative of a risk for attaining the state of disability by the risk-exposed individual accounting for improvements in diagnosis or treatment and related risk measurements,
upon detection of the indicators for the occurred death of the risk-exposed individual or the sale of the asset assigned to the risk-exposed individual, the remedial measures transferred by the automated risk-cover structure of the automated system are returned to the automated system, wherein upon the detection of the indicators for the occurred death of the risk-exposed individual and/or the sale of the asset assigned to the risk-exposed individual, a time trigger is initialized by setting up a definable time window threshold for returning the remedial measures transferred by the automated risk-cover structure to the automated system, the time window threshold being set to a size between 6 to 24 months, and
an amount of the remedial measures being returned to the automated system is a total nominal value of total remedial measures transferred between the triggering of the first trigger stage and the triggering of the second trigger stage.
As previously presented, the inventive system is NOT an abstract idea, because the present system concerns an automation of a method, i.e. a system operating with no interactions of human beings. The automation becomes technically only possible by the specific structure (multi-trigger stage) AND specific parameter settings provided by the features of the newly amended claims. In particular, the concrete parameters settings clearly show, that only the technical structure relying on the multi-stage trigger structure and the specific parameter setting allows to provide the advantageous automation which cannot be achieved and is not obvious by a skilled person starting from a generic computer combined with an abstract method.
Respectfully, the first step is to determine if the claims fall into a statutory category (Step 1 - Yes). The next step (2A-Prong 1) is to determine if the claims recite any abstract steps. Providing long-term care risk mitigation is a fundamental economic practice as well as commercial/legal interaction, which falls under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Further, the steps can be performed in the mind of a person or with pen and paper.
In the present case, the automation is further based on measurable physical variables which are actually measured, thus the measurements and sensors providing a necessary link to the real world. Id est, the system as such discloses a specific use of technical means for carrying out a method automatically, which is partially or entirely without human intervention. This is not an abstract idea, but a technical process. The technical expert necessarily requires a specific selection of input parameters for the trigger system, since, on the other hand, the present automation cannot be carried out by technical means, in particular automated means.
Use of a technical means is not improving a technology. Using computers for an abstract concept has been shown not to be enough to make abstract claims statutory.
According to the specification, a secured automation based on measurement parameters and not a purely administrative procedure is to be proposed, which is enabled to reliably trigger and cover long-term care events by means of a predefined, double trigger level by replacing them with liquid funds. In other words, the technical task is expressly to provide a specific and technical automation for the risk coverage procedure, which allows automation by means of a secure multiple trig-ger procedure using technical means. It is important to note again, that the necessary selection of measurement parameters is not based on the business process, but on the technical necessity of automation.
An alert has been shown to be abstract. See Office Example 21, where an alert was not enough to make abstract claims statutory.
The technical task at hand is therefore the technical construction of an automated system. The invention proposes a measurement sensor data-based operation and the necessary technical structure with measurement, triggers, adaptation of adaptive structures, signal generation by technical means of a multi-stage measurement trigger. A "per-se" abstract method does not require such defined trigger cycles and is based solely on the self-contained, abstract process of transferring premiums from an individual to an insurance unit, whereby such an abstract system in turn takes over the coverage of long-care events that occur.
The technical solution.
The inventive and adaptive automated operation of the present multi-stage trigger procedure together with the corresponding selection of measurement and trigger parameters is disclosed NEITHER by an abstract method running on a generic standard computer system NOR by the previously cited references which may represent the existing technological environment. The reason for this is that the purely administrative procedure is necessarily based on a contractual fixed basis, the fixed coverage of which is provided by the initial triggering by measurement parameters of a critical illness. The proposed technical solution includes an adaptive trigger cycle based on measuring the actual condition. This is only technically possible by relying on additional means. Due to automation, these are only accessed when death is detected. In the purely administrative procedure, such steps are not provided for and are also not necessary.
A novel abstract idea is still abstract. The rejection is based on statutory eligibility, not novelty.
Additionally, amended Claim 1 now explicitly recites that the system includes "one or more sensors configured to detect the individual measuring parameters of the risk-exposed individual; and one or more processors being configured to: receive the individual measuring parameters of the risk-exposed individual detected by the one or more sensor and determine that the state of disability of the risk-exposed individual has reached the predetermined condition based on the individual measuring parameters reach or exceed the threshold values for the state of disability, monitor a dataflow pathway of the risk-exposed individual by capturing risk-related health-related measuring data and asset-related data in different dataflow pathways associated with personal data of the risk-exposed individual periodically or within predefined time frames, and trigger the long-term care risk mitigation by means of an event- driven risk-exposed individual trigger providing the secured multi-step trigger cycle, wherein when the predetermined condition of the state of disability is triggered in combination with an age-related individual measuring parameter having a predefined threshold value amounting to a number of years, the one or more processors are configured to cause an up- front monetary amount generated by the automated system to be transferred to the automated system, and the long-term care risk mitigation is triggered by the automated system upon detecting transfer of the up-front monetary amount to the automated system."
Thus, the directing sensing of a sufficient state of disability of a user triggers the multi- step trigger cycle as illustrated in Fig. 2 below.
The sensors are generic sensors recited at a high level of generality. Using sensors is not improving a technology.
From Applicant’s specification on sensor (Pub. No. US 2023/0290518):
“Proposed is an automated system providing an automatable long-term care risk mitigation structure associated with immediate care needs of risk-exposed individuals in case of becoming a long-term care-receiver. The system provides an automated multi-step trigger and detection cycle based on sensory measuring data for risk-exposed individuals thereby mitigating possibly occurring long-term care needs by means of the automated system based on a detected sufficient state of disability, possibly predetermined up-front amount parameters and an assigned care equity ratio associated with an asset. The state of disability of the risk-exposed individual is measurable by a definable set of risk-exposed individual measuring parameters.” (Abstract)
“… the individual measuring parameter being segmentable in critical categories of individual measuring data at least comprising first trigger threshold parameter values providing a definable measure for individual's physical functional status parameters and/or current cognitive and/or sensory functional status parameters and/or prospective functional status parameters including physical and/or cognitive and/or sensory parameters and/or living environmental status parameters and/or long term care resource parameters, the trigger threshold parameter values triggered by means of monitored and measured values of the first set of individual measuring parameters in the autogenic dataflow pathway of a risk-exposed individual,…” [0011]
“The staged multi-tier structure 111/112 comprises a first trigger stage 111 triggering 21 on a sufficient state of disability 2 of a selected risk-exposed individual 41, 42, 43, . . . , 4i by a first set of individual measuring parameter values 101 captured in the dataflow pathway 5 of the risk-exposed individual 41, 42, 43, . . . , 4i. The individual measuring parameter 101 being segmentable in critical categories of individual measuring data 101 at least comprising first trigger threshold parameter values 1111, 1112 . . . 111i providing a definable measure for individual's physical functional status parameters 1011 and/or current cognitive 1012 and/or sensory functional status parameters 1013 and/or prospective functional status parameters 1014 including physical and/or cognitive and/or sensory parameters 1015 and/or living environmental status parameters 1016 and/or long term care resource parameters 1017, the trigger threshold parameter values 1111, 1112, . . . 1117 triggered by means of monitored and measured values 411, 421, . . . , 4i1 of the first set of individual measuring parameters 101 in the autogenic dataflow pathway 5 of a risk-exposed individual 4. It is to be noted that the disclosed selection of measuring parameters cannot be contributed by a businessman with his abstract, closed business method nor can it be contributed within the frame of an abstract mathematical method, but necessarily come from the technical skilled person being familiar with the requirements of technical measurements, sensory systems and the requirements prediction modeling systems implemented on finite machines…” [0024]
“1013 Sensory functional status parameters (3.sup.rd category)” [0038]
“1015 Sensory parameters (5th category)” [0040]
[0041] 1016 Living environmental status parameters (6th category) [0042] 1017 Long term care resource parameters (7th category) [0043] 102 Second set of individual measuring parameters [0044] 1021, 1022, . . . , 102i Measuring parameters of second parameter set [0045] 103 Third set of individual measuring parameters [0046] 1031 Age-related individual measuring parameter [0047] 1032 Age-related threshold value [0048] 1033 Health status parameter [0049] 11 Event-driven risk-exposed individual trigger [0050] 111 First stage trigger triggering on sufficient state of disability [0051] 1111 Trigger threshold value of physical functional status parameter [0052] 1112 Trigger threshold value of cognitive measuring parameters
“1113 Trigger threshold value of sensory functional status parameters” [0053]
“1115 Trigger threshold value of sensory parameters” [0055]
“51 Sensors” [0080]
“511 Data transmission interface of sensors 51” [0082]
The above teaches sensory parameters and generic sensors at a high level. There is no indication of a technical improvement to sensor technology.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
514
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The above Figure 2 is a risk mitigation system, not a new or improved technology.
From Applicant’s specification (Pub. No. US 2023/0290518):
“FIG. 2 shows a block diagram, schematically illustrating an automated system 1 for long-term care risk mitigation associated with immediate care needs of risk-exposed individuals in case of becoming a long-term care-receiver. The system 1 providing a secured multi-step trigger cycle 9 for risk-exposed individuals 4 thereby mitigating possibly occurring long-term care needs by means of the automated system based on a sufficient state of disability 2. The state of disability 2 of the risk-exposed individual 4 being measurable by a definable set of risk-exposed individual measuring parameters 10, wherein individual measuring parameter values 411, 421, . . . , 4i1 are captured and monitored by the automated system 10.” [0015]
The above “automated system” in Figure 2 is itself abstract.
As noted in the specification at pages 13-14, "the disclosed selection of measuring parameters cannot be contributed by a businessman with his abstract, closed business method nor can it be contributed within the frame of an abstract mathematical method, but necessarily come from the technical skilled person being familiar with the requirements of technical measurements, sensory systems and the requirements prediction modeling systems implemented on finite machines. It has further to be noted, that in the embodiment variant of the immediate needs, a disability state is needed before upfront monetary transfer."
Respectfully, receiving measuring parameters from a technical skilled person is not the same as improving a technology. Further, receiving data is insignificant extra solution activity. The claims are not about receiving technical data rather about mitigating long-term care risk.
Therefore, the automated system defined by amended Claim 1 cannot be achieved in the abstract realm since direct sensory information is needed to detect a sufficient state of disability to trigger the automated long-term care risk mitigation.
With all due respect, a person can detect and determine a state of disability of a risk-exposed individual by looking at the person.
Applicant would also like to again draw the Office's attention to Ex Parte Guillaume Desjardins et al., which was very recently decided by the Appeals Review Panel of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB"), see PTAB Appeal No. 2024-000567 (Sept. 26, 2025), p. 9. In this case, the § 101 rejection was overturned "because the panel essentially equated any machine learning with an unpatentable 'algorithm' and the remaining additional elements as 'generic computer components,' without adequate explanation. ... Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality (emphasis added).
The above case was an improvement to machine learning technology. Applicant is not claiming machine learning technology.
In this case, the Office has done exactly that - evaluated the claims at a very high level of generality since the claim is generally linked to a fundamental economic practice while the technical aspects of the claim are clearly not linked to such a general characterization.
With all due respect, if Applicant has improved technology, this should be claimed. Using generic sensors at a high level to receive parameters or data is not improving technology.
In this case, the present claims should not generally be considered a fundamental economic practice in view of the technical and concrete features (pointed out above), that are required to achieve the claimed result of the automated system that is triggered by a directly sensed state of disability of an individual.
Furthermore, Applicant re-emphasizes that Ex Parte Guillaume Desjardins also showed that even if a claim recites an abstract idea, this does not mean that the claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea, and thus cannot support the rejection. Id. at p. 10 (holding that while the independent claim may recite an abstract idea, it is not directed to an abstract idea, and that the independent claim, when considered as a whole, integrates an abstract idea into a practical application).
Therefore, it is believed that the claims do recite the "improvement" at a proper level of specificity, especially in view of the recent decision of Ex Parte Desjardins.
The above case showed an improvement to machine learning technology. Applicant’s invention is in the area of long-term care mitigation. The two claims are very different.
Therefore, the present claims as a whole provide an improvement to this technological environment and also integrate any interpreted judicial exception into a clear practical application. In this context, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that the claimed invention is not "akin" to a "method of organizing human activity." The claims are therefore not directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea, and the rejection must therefore be withdrawn.
Accordingly, for all of the above reasons, Applicant kindly requests the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection be withdrawn.
Receiving parameters detected by sensors is collecting data at a high level. Receiving data has been shown to be insignificant extra solution activity, noting that the claimed invention is not about receiving technology but about long-term care mitigation. The triggered cycle is itself abstract as it is part of the process of long-term care.
From Applicant’s specification (Pub. No. US 2023/0290518)…
“FIG. 1 shows a block diagram, schematically illustrating a secured care equity advance multi-step trigger cycle 9 according to the inventive system. At the reference numeral 91, the system 1 is setting up care equity advance linkage, i.e. relationship. The reference numeral 92 denotes the process of the equity splitter, setting-up an equity split threshold splitting the equity in a care equity ratio 921 having a market value 9211 at the time point of establishing relationship (i.e. care equity advance linkage) 9212, and a cutoff equity ratio 922. 93 denotes the initializing of the care equity advance linkage, with 931 denoting the assigned up-front monetary amount, and 932 denoting the detection of the up-front monetary amount transfer. The reference numeral 94 denotes the triggering of a sufficient state of disability, and 95 denotes the draw-down monetary transfer up to equity split threshold with 951 in case of a periodic monetary transfer. It is to be noted that, in respect to the triggering or detecting of the sufficient state of disability, in the immediate need embodiment variant, the sufficient state of disability must be occurred, i.e. verifiable and/or detectable, before the up-front monetary amount. 96 denotes the start of dissolving care equity advance risk transfer by triggering the death of individual 41, 42, . . . , 4i or the sale of the asset 31, 32, . . . , 3i. Finally, the reference numeral 97 denotes the disintegration of equity ratios, with 971 denoting the relief of the care equity ratio 921 to system 1, and 972 the relief of cutoff equity ratio 922 to the care receiver's 41, 42, . . . , 4i estate or inheritance.” [0014]
The above is an abstract process of certain methods of organizing human activity by managing money distribution based on a state of disability of a person. The rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendments.
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, 2, 9, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 2, 9, and 11-18 are directed to a system, which is a statutory category. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified system Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
An automated, event-driven, and triggered system for long-term care risk mitigation associated with detected immediate care needs of risk-exposed individuals in case of becoming a long-term care-receiver, the automated system providing a secured multi-step trigger and detection cycle for a risk-exposed individual with the detected immediate care needs based on measured sensory measuring data thereby mitigating possibly occurring long-term care needs by means of the automated system triggered by threshold values for a state of disability of the risk-exposed individual measured as having a predetermined condition, the state of disability being characterized by a definable set of risk-exposed individual measuring parameters, and individual measuring parameter values being captured and monitored by the automated system, the automated system comprising:
one or more sensors configured to detect the individual measuring parameters of the risk-exposed individual; and
one or more processors being configured to:
receive the individual measuring parameters of the risk-exposed individual detected by the one or more sensors and determine that the state of disability of the risk-exposed individual has reached the predetermined condition based on the individual measuring parameters reach or exceed the threshold values for the state of disability,
monitor a dataflow pathway of the risk-exposed individual by capturing risk- related health-related measuring data and asset-related data in different dataflow pathways associated with personal data of the risk-exposed individual periodically or within predefined time frames, and
trigger the long-term care risk mitigation by means of an event-driven risk- exposed individual trigger providing the secured multi-step trigger cycle,
wherein when the predetermined condition of the state of disability is triggered in combination with an age-related individual measuring parameter having a predefined threshold value amounting to a number of years, the one or more processors are configured to cause an up-front monetary amount generated by the automated system to be transferred to the automated system, and the long-term care risk mitigation is triggered by the automated system upon detecting transfer of the up-front monetary amount to the automated system, wherein
the event-driven risk-exposed individual trigger includes a staged multi-tier structure triggering, over a period of time, threshold values of a first and second set of individual measuring parameters in an autogenic dataflow pathway of the risk-exposed individual, the at least one assigned relationship including the up-front monetary amount,
for each long-term care risk mitigation, long-term care mitigation data are held in a persistence storage of the automated system and include at least one assigned relationship between the risk-exposed individual, an asset of the risk-exposed individual, and a remedial measure ratio dependent on the asset of the risk-exposed individual,
the remedial measures include transferred monetary remedial measures, and transferal of the monetary remedial measures is limited to a monetary amount determined by a predefined percentage of a market value of the asset, the predefined percentage is set to equal or less than 50% to 80% of the measured market value of the asset,
the market value of the asset is measured at a time point of establishing the assigned relationship between the risk-exposed individual and the asset of the risk-exposed individual, and is remeasured at a time point of detecting the state of disability,
the staged multi-tier structure includes a first trigger stage triggering on the state of disability of the risk-exposed individual by a first set of the individual measuring parameter values captured in the dataflow pathway of the risk-exposed individual,
the first set of the individual measuring parameter values are segmentable in categories of individual measuring data at least including first trigger threshold parameter values providing a definable measure for individual physical functional status parameters and current cognitive and sensory functional status parameters and prospective functional status parameters including physical and/or cognitive and sensory parameters,
the first trigger threshold parameter values are triggered by means of monitored and measured values of the first set of the individual measuring parameter values in the autogenic dataflow pathway of the risk-exposed individual departing from averaged historical parameter values and their value variations in time,
upon detection of the state of disability based on the first set of the individual measuring parameter values, covering by means of remedial measures is activated by electronic signal transmission to an automated risk-cover structure of the automated system being controllable by the electronic signal transmission and by transferring the remedial measures to the risk-exposed individual,
the multi-tier trigger structure includes a second stage trigger triggering a second set of the individual measuring parameter values captured in the dataflow pathway of the risk-exposed individual based on second trigger threshold parameter values providing a definable measure for indicators for an occurred death of the risk-exposed individual or a sale of the asset assigned to the risk-exposed individual,
the second stage trigger is dynamically adapted by means of an operating module based on time-correlated incidence data indicative of a risk for attaining the state of disability by the risk-exposed individual accounting for improvements in diagnosis or treatment and related risk measurements,
upon detection of the indicators for the occurred death of the risk-exposed individual or the sale of the asset assigned to the risk-exposed individual, the remedial measures transferred by the automated risk-cover structure of the automated system are returned to the automated system, wherein upon the detection of the indicators for the occurred death of the risk-exposed individual and/or sale of the asset assigned to the risk-exposed individual, a time trigger is initialized by setting up a definable time window threshold for returning the remedial measures transferred by the automated risk-cover structure to the automated system, the time window threshold being set to a size between 6 to 24 months, and
an amount of the remedial measures being returned to the automated system is a total nominal value of total remedial measures transferred between the triggering of the first trigger stage and the triggering of the second trigger stage.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim recites elements, in non-bold above, which covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice as well as commercial or legal interactions. For example, trigger long-term care risk mitigation by means of the risk exposed individual trigger, upon detection of state of disability covering by means of remedial measures by means of automated risk-cover structure and by transferring the remedial measures to the risk exposed individual, are mitigating financial risk, similar to providing insurance coverage to an individual to cover financial cost, which is a fundamental economic practice, the remedial measures include transferred monetary remedial measures, the market value of the asset is measured of the risk-exposed individual. Further, providing long-term care risk mitigation to an individual is providing commercial or legal interactions (agreements in the form of legal obligations), therefore, also abstract under commercial/legal interactions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as a fundamental economic practice, or commercial/legal interaction, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract)
In as much as the claim can be performed in the mind of a person or with pen and paper, the claim is also abstract under Mental Processes grouping of abstract ideas. A person in their mind or with pen and paper can monitor a dataflow of an individual, trigger a long-term risk mitigation, measure the market value of an asset at a point in time, categorize parameter values, detect a disability of an individual, obtain a state of disability of an individual, detect death of an individual or sale of an asset. Also, using a generic computer to perform a judicial exception has been shown to be abstract as a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite: sensors, processor, persistence storage (Claim 1). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The sensors are generic sensors for receiving parameters, which is incidental to the claim of providing long-term care mitigation. The storage could be anything as there is no teaching as to exactly what this is. A filing cabinet stores information. Accordingly, this additional element, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a persistence storage is not enough. Accordingly, the additional element, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus claim 1 is not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2, 9, and 11-18 further define the abstract idea that is present in their independent claim 1 and thus corresponds to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and Mental Processes and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 2, 9, and 11-18 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1, 2, 9, and 11-18 are not patent-eligible.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
Prior Art
A prior art search was conducted but does not result in a prior art rejection at this time. Based on searching, the best prior art found is Pub. No. US 2017/0301032 to Turner et al. Turner teaches assisted living benefits (long-term care), triggers, and insurance policy (asset). However, Turner does not teach market, total value and specifics of predefined percentage of market value and time window period size.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KENNETH BARTLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5230. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 - 4:00 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, SHAHID MERCHANT can be reached at (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.
/KENNETH BARTLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
