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 Claims
This action is in reply to application 18/482,206 filed 10/6/2023. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 11-13, 15, 17, and 20 were amended and claims 2, 5, 14, 16, and 19 were cancelled in the reply filed 9/2/2025. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 are pending. This action is final.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 9 regarding claims 1-20: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that claim 1 does not cover concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The recited abstract idea falls within “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people - following rules or instructions) because it is directed to managing the business relations between management and residents at long-term care facilities (see spec. para. [0002]. Furthermore, the claims are directed to instructing long-term care facility management to follow recommendations regarding emergency preparedness.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 is not directed to any “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” listing the subcategories individually. The same response to arguments above apply to this argument as well. Claim 1 covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people - following rules or instructions).
Applicant further argues that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea because the additional elements integrate it into a practical application. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of claim 1 merely describe a generic computer environment upon which the abstract idea is being “applied.”
Regarding Applicant’s argument starting on page 11 regarding claims 1-20: Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered, and are persuasive. All prior art rejections have been withdrawn, and 1, 3-4, 6-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 are considered novel over the prior art. See the more detailed explanation below in section entitled Reasons for Novelty.
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, 3-4, 6-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1, 15, and 20 each recite a computing unit used to retrieve, via a network established by the mobile response unit, one or more sets of information associated with a first facility from a remote database; generate, using the one or more sets of information associated with the first facility, an emergency preparedness score, wherein the emergency preparedness score includes at least one of a facility score or a mobile response unit score, and a recommendation associated with the facility score or the mobile response unit score; display, via a display device of the mobile response unit, a user interface that includes the emergency preparedness score; receive an indication that the first facility accepted the recommendation; monitor, responsive to receipt of the indication that the first facility accepted the recommendation, a the progress of the recommendation; detect, subsequent to monitoring the progress, additional information that pertains to the first facility, wherein the additional information includes at least one action performed at the first facility; compare the additional information with a predetermined standard, wherein the predetermined standard includes the at least one action determine that the additional information exceeds the predetermined standard update, responsive to determining that the additional information exceeds the predetermined standard, the emergency preparedness score: and provide, via the network, to a user device, responsive to updating the emergency preparedness score, at least one prompt to accept a transfer, from a second facility, of a resident. Therefore, claims 1, 15, and 20 are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a machine.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations retrieve ... one or more sets of information associated with a first facility ... generate, using the one or more sets of information associated with the first facility, an emergency preparedness score, wherein the emergency preparedness score includes at least one of a facility score or a mobile response unit score, and a recommendation associated with the facility score or the mobile response unit score; display ... the emergency preparedness score; receive an indication that the first facility accepted the recommendation; monitor, responsive to receipt of the indication that the first facility accepted the recommendation, a the progress of the recommendation; detect, subsequent to monitoring the progress, additional information that pertains to the first facility, wherein the additional information includes at least one action performed at the first facility; compare the additional information with a predetermined standard, wherein the predetermined standard includes the at least one action determine that the additional information exceeds the predetermined standard update, responsive to determining that the additional information exceeds the predetermined standard, the emergency preparedness score; and provide ... to a user ... responsive to updating the emergency preparedness score, at least one prompt to accept a transfer, from a second facility, of a resident, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people - following rules or instructions). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the groupings of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people - following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 15, and 20 merely describe how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of claims 1, 15, and 20, a mobile response unit (claims 1, 15, and 20), a processing circuit (claims 1, 15, and 20), a processor (claims 1, 15, and 20), memory (claims 1, 15, and 20), a network (claims 1, 15 and 20), a remote database (claims 1 and 15), a display (claims 1, 15, and 20), a user interface (claims 1, 15, and 20), a user device (claims 1, 15, and 20), a selectable element included in the user interface (claims 15 and 20), a second user interface (claim 20), and a selectable element included in the user interface (claim 20), are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of claims 1, 15, and 20 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe the abstract idea generally “applied” to a generic computer environment. The additional elements of claims 1, 15, and 20, a mobile response unit (described in spec. para. [0032]), a processing circuit (described in spec. para. [0038]), a processor (described in spec. para. [0039]), memory (described in spec. para. [0040]), a network (described in spec. para. [0037]), a remote database (described in spec. para. [0042]), a display (described in spec. para. [0044]), a user interface (described in spec. para. [0044]), a user device (described in spec. para. [0041]), a selectable element included in the user interface (described in spec. para. [0004]), a second user interface (described in spec. para. [0044]), and a selectable element included in the second user interface (described in spec. para. [0005]), are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which this additional element is described indicates that the additional element is sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 3-4, 6-13, and 17-18 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 3-4, 6-13, and 17-18 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that are not recited in the independent claims. The additional elements of the independent claims have already been examined above. The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that are not recited in the independent claims. The additional elements of the independent claims have already been examined above. The high level of generality in which the additional elements are described indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Reasons for Novelty
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 are considered novel over the prior art. Examiner has determined that the combination of claim elements is unanticipated by prior art and that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to have arrived at the claimed invention. In the previous office action Examiner rejected the independent claims as being obvious over Oster (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0055245) in view of Glidewell (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0296565). Examiner considers these references and Caneva (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0050239) the closest prior art to the claimed invention. However, given the amendments to the independent claims, Examiner has determined that the previously cited combinations of references do not teach the independent claims as a whole. Furthermore, Examiner has determined that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine these previously cited references with further prior art in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the independent and dependent claims are all considered novel over the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, SHANNON CAMPBELL can be reached at (571) 272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3628