DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/11/2026 has been entered.
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.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Using the language in claim(s) 1 to illustrate, the limitations of receiving, by the cloud server, a first data signal comprising real-time location data, vital signs data, or acceleration data of the primary account holder…; determining, an impairment status for the primary account holder based on the real-time location data, vital signs data, or acceleration data of the primary account holder; confirming, the impairment status for the primary account holder based on at least one transaction in the second transaction history for the non-primary account holder, wherein the at least one transaction occurred after the receiving of the first signal; activating, based on the confirming, management controls for the one or more accounts associated with the primary account holder and the non-primary account holder; and deactivating, by the cloud server and based on the receiving the second data signal, the management controls for the one or more accounts associated with the primary account holder and the non-primary account holder.
The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity, in particular, fundamental economic practices, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claimed invention allows for protecting an account of a primary account holder during a period of medical impairment which is a certain method of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices). The mere nominal recitation of a cloud server, a database, and a user device containing a vital sign monitoring device, an accelerometer and a geolocation monitoring device, do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human activity grouping. Thus, under Eligibility Step 2A, prong one, (MPEP §2106.04(a)), the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2A, prong two, (MPEP §2106.04(d)), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the additional elements: storing, by a cloud server, one or more accounts associated with a primary account holder and a non-primary account holder in a database…; receiving, by the cloud server, a second data signal indicating the primary account holder is no longer impaired. The storing and receiving steps/functions are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of storing and receiving data). Storing and receiving data are forms of insignificant extra-solution activity –see MPEP 2106.05(g).
The cloud server, and user device having a geolocation monitoring device, a vital sign monitoring device, and an accelerometer, is also recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the receiving, determining, confirming, activating and deactivating steps. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (a cloud server). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer component. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Similar arguments can be extended to independent claims 8 and 15 and hence claims 8 and 15 are rejected on similar grounds as claim 1. In addition, claim 8 recites a database, a user device having a geolocation monitoring device, a vital sign monitoring device, and an accelerometer, a memory for storing operations, and one or more processors configured to execute the operations to perform the claimed functions and claim 15 recites a database, a user device having a geolocation monitoring device, a vital sign monitoring device, and an accelerometer, non- transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that when executed by at least one computing device, cause the computing device to perform claimed operations, that amount to generic computer implementation.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Under Eligibility Step 2B, (MPEP §2106.05), the claim(s) does/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 in the claims amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Furthermore, under Step 2B, the additional elements found to be insignificant extra-solution activities under step 2A prong two, are re-evaluated to determine if the elements are more than what is well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field. Here, the Specification does not provide any indication that the database, user device, server, processor and memory device storing instructions which when executed by the processor perform the claimed steps are anything other than generic computer components and the Versata Dev. Group, Inc., and OIP court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05[d][ii] indicate that the mere storing and retrieving information in memory are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here).
Furthermore, the Specification does not provide any indication that the database, user device, server, processor and memory device storing instructions which when executed by the processor perform the claimed steps are anything other than generic computer components and the Symantec, TLI Communications, OIP Techs, and buySafe court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05[d][ii] indicate that the mere receiving and transmitting data over a network are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the storing of data and receiving data limitations are well understood, routine, and conventional activities is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. The dependent claim(s) when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because for the same reasoning as above and the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 simply help to define the abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claim(s) when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the claim limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything further than looking at the claim limitations individually. When viewed either individually, or as an ordered combination, the additional limitations do not amount to a claim as a whole that is significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-20 is/are ineligible.
Response to Arguments
4. In response to the amendment of claims 1, 8, and 15, the Examiner withdraws the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection.
On page 12 or the Remarks, Applicant contends that under Step 2A,prong two, the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application and that the claims are directed towards a particular, technical solution to a particular technical problem solving deficiencies in that legacy approaches to applying a medical impairment mode to an account.
Under the 2019 PEG, Step 2A, prong two, integration into a practical application requires an additional element(s) 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. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application are those that are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.-see MPEP 2106.05(f) as is the case here.
Applicant argues that the technical solution as described in the Specification provides several technical implementations which include, for example, aggregating real-time location data, vital signs data, and/or acceleration data of a primary user for an impairment model, identifying relevant data, and using the model output to activate management controls for one or more accounts associated with the primary account holder and the non-primary account holder and therefore, claim 1 includes particular and specific limitation evincing a specific solution within a particular technological field. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application, a determination is made of whether the claimed invention pertains to an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field (i.e., a technological solution to a technological problem). Here, the claims recite generic computer components, i.e., cloud server, and user device having a geolocation monitoring device, a vital sign monitoring device, and an accelerometer,. The cloud server, and user device having a geolocation monitoring device, a vital sign monitoring device, and an accelerometer, are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions customarily used in computer applications.
Applicants argue that claim 1 is analogous to claim 2, of hypothetical example 35, because example 35 recited a combination of the steps (e.g., the ATM’s providing a random code, the mobile communication device’s generation of the image having encrypted code data in response to the random code, the ATM’s decryption and analysis of the code data, and the subsequent determination of whether the transaction should proceed based on the analysis of the code data) operate in a non-conventional and non-generic way to ensure that the customer’s identity is verified in a secure manner that is more than the conventional verification process employed by an ATM alone. In combination, these steps did not represent merely gathering data for comparison or security purposes, but instead set up a sequence of events that addressed unique problems associated with bank cards and ATMs (e.g., the user of stolen or “skimmed “ bank cards and/or customer information to perform unauthorized transactions). The argument is not convincing.
The claims here do not provide an unconventional, and non-generic combination of known elements that result in an improvement in the underlying technology. Accordingly, the additional elements did not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they did not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Here, as discussed above and in the 35 USC 101 rejection, the claimed invention merely uses a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception-see MPEP 2106.05(f), specified at a high level of generality, and therefore, the limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Prong two of Step 2A. The focus of the claims is not on an improvement to the identified additional elements as tools, but on the abstract ideas that use the additional elements as tools.
On page 15 of the Remarks, Applicant argues, “While the claim arguably
includes limitations that are ‘practicably performed in the human mind’ (Off. Act., 5), claim 1 as a whole is directed to a particular, technological improvement that secures an account during a period of medical impairment. By receiving ...a first data signal comprising real-time location data, vital signs data, or acceleration data of the primary account holder from a user device, the real-time location data generated by a geolocation monitoring device on the user device, the vital signs data generated by a vital sign monitoring device on the user device, and the acceleration data generated by an accelerometer on the user device, the claimed solution is able to identify an impairment status. Moreover, the claimed solution can then confirm the impairment status for the primary account holder based on at least one transaction in the second transaction history for the non- primary account holder, wherein the at least one transaction occurred after the receiving of the first data signal. This improves the accuracy of legacy tools in determining whether an account holder is, in fact, impaired, prior to imposing the management controls.”
The argument is not persuasive because the claims recite the use of computer components, i.e., a cloud server, a user device generating data using a geolocation monitoring device on the user device, the vital sign monitoring device on the user device, and an accelerometer on the user device, in their ordinary capacity.
Applicants contend that under step 2B, the additional claim elements are not routine, conventional, or well-known and that dependent claims 4, 11 and 18 specify the specific management controls that can be activated during a medical impairment and therefore solve a technical problem with a technical solution.
The argument is not convincing. Claims 4, 11 and 18 recite features included in the management controls such as credit limit increases and anti-fraud restrictions. The claims recite generic computer implementation to improve a business process. The claims do not recite an improvement in technology. The focus of the claims is not on an improvement to the identified additional elements as tools, but on the abstract ideas that use the additional elements as tools. The use of generic computer components to carry out the abstract idea does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). The additional limitations of the dependent claims do not add an inventive concept to the abstract idea because they further define the abstract idea and as described above, perform generic computer functions in conjunction with the abstract idea and does not go beyond mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC §101.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mauran, Cecily. “So, How Exactly Does Apple’s Crash Detection Work? Apple Execs Break it Down.” Mashable.com. Oct. 10, 2022. -cited for its reference to accelerometer is a sensor within an iPhone.
McLaughlin, Molly. “The Best Free GPS Apps for Your iPhone.” PCMag.com. Jan 20, 2016.-cited for its reference to GPS Apps on smartphones.
US 2023/0386320 (Meijer et al.)-cited for using smart phone for vital sign monitoring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELDA MILEF whose telephone number is (571)272-8124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm; Friday 7am-12pm.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303)297-4411. 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.
/ELDA G MILEF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694