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 .
Response to Amendment
The previous claim objections have been overcome.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 02/19/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1 and 9 have been amended; claims 2-8 and 10-15 have been canceled; and claims 16-18 have been added.
Claims 1, 9, and 16-18 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 02/22/2019
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections:
The previous claim objections have been withdrawn in view of claims 14-15 being canceled.
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
Applicant argues that the present claims do not relate to a method of organizing human activity and are performed automatically by a series of modules in execution upon a number of microprocessors. Examiner however respectfully disagrees as the claims do indeed recite an abstract idea where the modules and processors are used to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components.
35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections:
Applicant argues that the amended claims overcome the previous rejections. Examiner agrees and withdraws these rejections.
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, 9, and 16-18 is 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.
Claims 1 and 16 recite an executing step involving “a health indicator system” upon one or more other microprocessors. It is unclear as to what the system and how it can be executed upon a processor. Accordingly, these claims have been deemed indefinite.
Claim 18 recites “an electronic device” in the providing limitation. Examiner is unsure if this is a different device than the “one or more electronic device” from claim 16.
Claims 9 and 17-18 are rejected based on their dependency on the independent claims.
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, 9, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1, 9, and 16-18 are drawn to methods which are within the four statutory categories. Claims 1, 9, and 16-18 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a method comprising:
1) executing a) an activity identification module upon one or more microprocessors which performs an automated process comprising:
1a) acquiring channel state information (CSI) related metadata from a wireless access point in proximity to the monitored space and processing the CSI related metadata acquired from the wireless access point;
1b) comparing the acquired processed CSI related metadata to a subset of a plurality of profiles stored within b) a profile database accessible to the activity identification module where each profile of the subset of the plurality of profiles comprises a set of CSI related metadata associated with an activity of a plurality of activities; and
1c) determining in dependence upon the comparison of the acquired processed CSI related metadata with the subset of a plurality of profiles the activity of the plurality of activities;
2) executing c) a health indicator system upon one or more other microprocessors which performs another automated process of:
2a) storing within d) an activity database with a base module of the health indicator system activity data over a period of time comprising at least a current activity of the plurality of activities within the monitored space acquired from the activity identification module;
2b) processing with e) an activity analysis module forming part of the health indicator system the stored activity data within the activity database to establish regular user behaviour data relating to one or more regular user behaviors within the monitored space within the period of time;
2c) storing with the activity analysis module forming part of the health indicator system the regular user behaviour data relating to one or more regular user behaviors within the monitored space within the period of time established by the activity analysis module forming part of the health indicator system within h) an electronic medical record database;
2d) determining with f) a health indication module forming part of the health indicator system whether an indication of a health event with respect to the user exists within the electronic medical records database;
2e) upon determining that an indication of the health event with respect to the user exists within the electronic medical records database retrieving with the health indication module from a health events database accessible to the health indication module parameters or metrics of one or more activity metrics for the health event associated with the indication of the health event;
2f) determining with the health indication module whether a subset of the data relating to the one or more regular user behaviors within the monitored space within the period of time is compliant with the parameters or metrics of the one or more activity metrics retrieved for the health event from the health events database accessible to the health indication module; and
2g) upon determining that the subset of the data relating to the one or more regular user behaviors within the monitored space within the period of time is not compliant triggering g) a notification module of the health indicator system to generate h) one or more electronic notifications to i) one or more electronic devices via a network; wherein
the parameters or metrics of one or more activity metrics for the health event associated with the indication of the health event within the health events database are set for all users.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) establishing a current activity of a user within a monitored space by: 1a) acquiring channel state information (CSI) related metadata from a wireless access point in proximity to the monitored space and processing the CSI related metadata, and 1b) determining the current activity in dependence upon comparing the processed CSI related metadata to a subset of a plurality of profiles stored within a profile database accessible to the activity identification module where each profile of the subset of the plurality of profiles comprises a set of CSI related metadata associated with an activity of a plurality of activities. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, the claim describes how a human might determine activities from CSI data. Claim 16 is similar to claim 1 except for varying parameters or metrics.
Depending claims 9 and 17-18 include all of the limitations of claims 1 and 16, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claim 9 adds the additional steps of “upon determining that no indication of the health event with respect to the user exists within the electronic medical records database retrieving from the health events database default parameters or metrics of an activity metric of the one or more activity metrics”, “determining whether a subset of the data relating to the one or more regular user behaviors within the monitored space within the period of time is outside of a normal range defined by the retrieved default parameters or metrics of the activity metric of the one or more activity metrics retrieved from the health events database”, and “upon determining that the subset of the data relating to the one or more regular user behaviors within the monitored space within the period of time is outside of the normal range triggering the notification module of the health indicator system to send one or more other electronic notifications to one or more other electronic devices via the network”; claim 17 adds the additional steps of “determining whether the caregiver has already been notified with respect to the non- compliance of the subset of the data relating to the one or more regular user behaviors with respect to the parameters or metrics of the one or more activity metrics retrieved for the health event retrieved from the caregiver events database”, “upon determining the caregiver has not previously been notified notifying the caregiver”, “upon determining the caregiver has previously been notified determining whether the data relating to the one or more regular user behaviors which is non-compliant with the parameters or metrics of the one or more activity metrics retrieved for the health event retrieved from the caregiver events database has changed”, and “only upon determining the data relating to the one or more regular user behaviors which is non-compliant with the parameters or metrics of the one or more activity metrics retrieved for the health event retrieved from the caregiver events database has changed notifying the caregiver”; and claim 18 adds the additional steps of “determining whether the caregiver has already been notified with respect to the non-compliance of the subset of the data relating to the one or more regular user behaviors with respect to the parameters or metrics of the one or more activity metrics retrieved for the health event retrieved from the caregiver events database”, “upon determining the caregiver has not previously been notified notifying the caregiver”, “upon determining the caregiver has previously been notified determining whether the data relating to the one or more regular user behaviors which is non- compliant with the parameters or metrics of the one or more activity metrics retrieved for the health event retrieved from the caregiver events database has changed”, “only upon determining the data relating to the one or more regular user behaviors which is non-compliant with the parameters or metrics of the one or more activity metrics retrieved for the health event retrieved from the caregiver events database has changed notifying the caregiver”, and “upon notifying the caregiver executing a process comprising: providing a prompt to the caregiver upon an electronic device to indicate whether the parameters or metrics of the one or more activity metrics retrieved for the health event are still appropriate for the user; upon receiving an indication from electronic device established by the caregiver that the parameters or metrics of the one or more activity metrics retrieved for the health event are still appropriate for the user prompting the caregiver with another prompt as to whether to notify the user to set up an appointment; upon receiving an indication from electronic device established by the caregiver that the parameters or metrics of the one or more activity metrics retrieved for the health event are not appropriate for the user executing a caregiver update module which enables the caregiver via the electronic device to amend a subset of the parameters or metrics of the one or more activity metrics associated with the health event”. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. Thus, depending claims 9 and 17-18 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1 and 16 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) an activity identification module, b) a profile database accessible to the activity identification module, c) a health indicator system, d) an activity database with a base module of the health indicator system, e) an activity analysis module forming part of the health indicator system, f) a health indication module forming part of the health indicator system, g) a notification module of the health indicator system, h) one or more electronic notifications, i) one or more electronic devices, j) one or more other electronic devices (in claim 9), k) a caregiver update module (in claim 18), and l) an electronic device (in claim 18) to perform the claimed steps.
The claims also include the additional element steps of 1) “executing an activity identification module upon one or more microprocessors which performs an automated process” and 2) “executing a health indicator system upon one or more other microprocessors which performs another automated process”.
The a) an activity identification module, b) a profile database accessible to the activity identification module, c) a health indicator system, d) an activity database with a base module of the health indicator system, e) an activity analysis module forming part of the health indicator system, f) a health indication module forming part of the health indicator system, g) a notification module of the health indicator system, h) one or more electronic notifications, and k) a caregiver update module to perform the claimed steps and the additional element steps of 1) “executing an activity identification module upon one or more microprocessors which performs an automated process” and 2) “executing a health indicator system upon one or more other microprocessors which performs another automated process” in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Additionally, the i) one or more electronic devices, j) one or more other electronic devices, and l) electronic device in these steps adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea which amounts to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Looking at the 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a) an activity identification module, b) a profile database accessible to the activity identification module, c) a health indicator system, d) an activity database with a base module of the health indicator system, e) an activity analysis module forming part of the health indicator system, f) a health indication module forming part of the health indicator system, g) a notification module of the health indicator system, h) one or more electronic notifications, i) one or more electronic devices, j) one or more other electronic devices, k) a caregiver update module, and l) an electronic device to perform the claimed steps and the additional element steps of 1) “executing an activity identification module upon one or more microprocessors which performs an automated process” and 2) “executing a health indicator system upon one or more other microprocessors which performs another automated process” to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional activity) and mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that does not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05(f) recite that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); and
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention determines an activity utilizing a) an activity identification module, b) a profile database accessible to the activity identification module, c) a health indicator system, d) an activity database with a base module of the health indicator system, e) an activity analysis module forming part of the health indicator system, f) a health indication module forming part of the health indicator system, g) a notification module of the health indicator system, h) one or more electronic notifications, and k) a caregiver update module to perform the claimed steps and the additional element steps of 1) “executing an activity identification module upon one or more microprocessors which performs an automated process” and 2) “executing a health indicator system upon one or more other microprocessors which performs another automated process”, thus these computing elements are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Additionally, the i) one or more electronic devices, j) one or more other electronic devices, and l) electronic device in these steps add insignificant extra-solution activity/pre-solution activity in the form of WURC activity to the abstract idea. The following is an example of a court decision demonstrating computer functions as well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II): Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the current invention receives responses to prompt data or generates notifications, and transmits the response data to a system and the notifications to an electronic device over a network, for example the Internet.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components or insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of WURC activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1, 9, and 16-18 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
No Art Rejections
Claims 1, 9, and 16-18 do not have art rejections applied as the potential combination of references which could be used to reject these claims would be an unreasonable combination.
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 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 Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating 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, Shahid Merchant can be reached on 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights