DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Application
This action is in reply to the correspondence received through September 18, 2025 (hereinafter “Reply”).
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more as required by the Alice test as discussed below.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
Step 2A
Claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas, as explained below.
Prong one of the Step 2A analysis requires identifying the specific limitation(s) in the claim under examination that the examiner believes recites an abstract idea; and determining whether the identified limitation(s) falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claims recite the following limitations that are directed to abstract ideas. Claim 1 recites identifying a set of categories corresponding to electronic activity data associated with a real-world location; identifying a set of data for each category in the set of categories; analyzing each set of data for each category; determining, based on the analysis, a specific type of computational analysis to be performed for each set of data; executing each type of computational analysis; determining an electronic output for each category respectively based on the execution of each type of computational analysis; generating an interactive interface card for each determined output, the interactive interface card comprising functionality for facilitating communication among resources at the real-world location. Claims 8 and 16 recite similar features as claim 1. Claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-20 further specify features of the algorithms of their respective independent claims or characteristics of the data used thereby.
These limitations describe abstract ideas that correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts as mathematical concepts—such as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations—because the claimed steps for perform a computational analysis are mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.
These limitations describe abstract ideas that correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts as mental processes—such as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion)—because the claimed features identified above are concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion).
These limitations describe abstract ideas that correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts as certain methods of organizing human activity—such as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations), managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)—manage personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions.
Thus, the concepts set forth in claims 1-20 recite abstract ideas.
Prong two of the Step 2A requires identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. “Integration into a practical application” requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Further, “integration into a practical application” uses the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit to evaluate whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, such as considerations discussed in M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(a)-(h).
The claims recite the following additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites a device and causing display over a network of a displayable user interface (UI). Claim 8 recites similar features as claim 1 and further recites software. Claim 16 recites similar features as claims 1 and 8 and further recites a processor. Claims 6, 4, and 20 recite a sensor or a camera. Several of the dependent claims recite features for updating the display.
The identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons.
First, evaluated individually, the additional elements do not integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application. The additional computer elements identified above—the device, network, a displayable user interface (UI), software, processor, sensor, and camera—are recited at a high level of generality. Inclusion of these elements amounts to mere instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f). The use of conventional computer elements to causing display over a network of a displayable user interface (UI) (or refreshing this display) is the insignificant, extra-solution activity of mere data gathering or outputting in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g). To the extent that the claims transform data, the mere manipulation of data is not a transformation. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(c). Inclusion of the computing system in the claims amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(h). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Second, evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(a). Their collective functions merely provide an implementation of the identified abstract ideas on a computer system in the general field of use of healthcare facility monitoring. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(h).
Thus, claims 1-20 recite mathematical concepts, mental processes, or certain methods of organizing human activity without including additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are directed to abstract ideas.
Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The analysis above describes how the claims recite the additional elements beyond those identified above as being directed to an abstract idea, as well as why identified judicial exception(s) are not integrated into a practical application. These findings are hereby incorporated into the analysis of the additional elements when considered both individually and in combination. Additional features of these analyses are discussed below.
Evaluated individually, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, these additional computer elements also provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to causing display over a network of a displayable user interface (UI) (or refreshing this display) is the well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., the Internet, and does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the identified abstract ideas. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(d)(II). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Evaluating the claim limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. In addition to the factors discussed regarding Step 2A, prong two, there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely amount to mere instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer.
Thus, claims 1-20, taken individually and as an ordered combination of elements, are not directed to eligible subject matter since they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Statement Regarding the Prior Art
The independent claims recite features for identifying, by a device, a set of categories corresponding to electronic activity data associated with a real-world location; identifying, by the device, a set of data for each category in the set of categories; analyzing, by the device, each set of data for each category; determining, by the device, based on the analysis, a specific type of computational analysis to be performed for each set of data; executing, by the device, each type of computational analysis; determining, by the device, an electronic output for each category respectively based on the execution of each type of computational analysis; generating, by the device, an interactive interface card for each determined output, the interactive interface card comprising functionality for facilitating communication among resources at the real-world location.
Day et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0319884 A1) discloses collecting, aggregating, and visualizing resource availability information for one or more medical facilities. In one example in Day, a method includes receiving first data from a first medical facility, the first data received via a first data streaming process and in a first format; receiving second data from a second medical facility, the second data received via a second data streaming process and in a second format; processing the first data and the second data to generate one or more resource availability graphical user interfaces (GUIs); and outputting the one or more resource availability GUIs for display on a display device. However, Day does not disclose the features recited in the independent claims.
Floren et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0259263 A1) teaches techniques for visualizing and interacting with a plurality of models that collectively represent a real-world system depicted in a graphical user interface. The system described herein may generate an interactive graphical user interface with multiple modes and a plurality of panels associated with the plurality of models. These panels and modes lay the framework for how a user can properly visualize and analyze the models at a particular point in time or over a period of time. The systems, computer program products, and computer-implemented methods may enable a plurality of models that collectively represent a real-world system be interacted with and visualized by a graphical user interface. However, Floren does not teaches the features recited in the independent claims.
AthuluruTirumala (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0332785 A1) teaches obtaining data, in real-time, associated with a customer and interaction with the customer during a service being provided to the customer by one or more persons; obtaining design parameters associated with the service, wherein each design parameter has an objective measure; analyzing the data to compare performance of the service with respect to the design parameters; and providing a user interface to visually display the performance. The data can be obtained via one or more of feedback from the customer during the service, interaction of the customer with a mobile application, and interaction with a bot monitoring the service. However, AthuluruTirumala does not teaches the features recited in the independent claims.
Rohleder et al. (“Modeling patient service centers with simulation and system dynamics.” Health care management science 10 (2007): 1-12) and Guo et al. (“Flexible electronics with dynamic interfaces for biomedical monitoring, stimulation, and characterization.” International Journal of Mechanical System Dynamics 1.1 (2021): 52-70) have been cited to further show the state of the art regarding healthcare facility monitoring.
The closest art of record, including the combination of references discussed above, fails to teach, suggest, or render obvious each and every element of the claims as arranged in the claims. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would not look to combine these references, or the other art of record, to arrive at the present claims.
Response to Arguments
The arguments submitted with the Reply have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea “but rather to a specific technological improvement in how computing devices process location-specific electronic activity data and generate interactive interfaces.” Reply, p. 7. Examiners disagrees, because the features identified in the rejections as being abstract ideas do not recite technical improvements or features.
Applicant argues that “the instant claims improve computer functionality by providing a specialized system for processing electronic activity data and automatically generating interactive interface cards that facilitate real-world communications.” Reply, p. 7. Applicant similarly argues certain features that “demonstrates that the system must employ sophisticated algorithmic processing that goes well beyond routine data gathering or generic computer implementation.” Id., p. 8.
Examiner disagrees. As shown by the identification of abstract ideas, very little of the claim involves any technological implementation. To the extent that a computer is involved in the claims, its recitation amounts to mere instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f). To the extent that the claims transform data, the mere manipulation of data is not a transformation. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(c). And inclusion of the computing system in the claims amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(h).
Applicant argues that because the claims recite “generating, by the device, an interactive interface card for each determined output, the interactive interface card comprising a functionality for facilitating communication among resources at the real-world location” that this element “demonstrates that the system must create specialized user interface components that are specifically designed to bridge electronic data processing with real-world geographical locations and enable communications among physical resources.” Reply, p. 8. Examiner disagrees, because this feature can refer to a business card (i.e., an interactive piece of paper with a phone number that facilitates someone making a phone call to a physical location).
Applicant argues that the use of UI “for displaying each generated interactive interface card” involves “technical considerations related to network protocols, display formatting, and distributed system coordination that are inherently technological rather than abstract.” Reply, p. 9. Examiner disagrees. As discussed in the rejections, the UI is recited at a high level of generality. Inclusion of this element amounts to mere instructions to implement the identified abstract ideas on a computer. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(f). The use of conventional computer elements to causing display over a network of a displayable user interface (UI) (or refreshing this display) is the insignificant, extra-solution activity of mere data gathering or outputting in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g).
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 Christopher Tokarczyk, whose telephone number is 571-272-9594. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday between 6:00 AM and 4:00 PM Eastern.
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, Mamon Obeid, can be reached at 571-270-1813. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B TOKARCZYK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687