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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reference to the communication filed on 8 DEC 2025.
Amendments to claims 1, 5-9, 11, 13, 17-20, cancellation of claims 10, 14-16, and addition of claims 21-24 are entered and considered.
Claims 1-9, 11-13, 17-24 are present and have been examined.
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, 11-13, 17-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As explained below, the claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One: Is the Claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1-9, 11-13, 17-24 the independent claim(s) 1, 13, 19 recite(s) each recite a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1-20 the independent claim(s) (claims 1, 13, 19) is/are directed, in part, to:
A system to monitor a person under care by a stakeholder, comprising:
in a physical environment, each of the tokens comprising at least in part a detected data set representing behaviors of the person under care in the environment, each of the behaviors is represented by a multi-dimensional feature set forming part of a health care profile for the person under care, wherein the token is
using a predictive technique to identify potential future states of the person under care and their environment, and, based on analysis of the digital twin determine whether a current configuration of the plurality
in response to determining that the current configuration of the plurality of environmental sensors is not sufficient to detect the actual occurrence of the simulated wellness or care event, to change a state of the plurality of sensors;
after the state of the
when the wellness or care event has occurred, the at least one processor is configured to:
decode the plurality of tokens with the
analyze the plurality of tokens, and
change the state of the plurality of environmental sensors or notify the stakeholder.
These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed mental processes, i.e. concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. Receiving information about the behavior of a person in care to create a profile, storing a profile from those behaviors, analyzing the behavior to determine if/when an event occurs, and analyze the behavior to change the state/notify someone all require or are examples of the actions identified above.
Examiner further notes that the digital twin as claimed is found to be essentially a model. A model is found to be a mathematical concept – i.e. mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and/or calculations. As such, the claims recite mathematical concepts as identified above.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) additional elements to perform the claim steps. Claim 1 recites a “transceiver,” “environmental sensors” and a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” as well as a processor. Claim 13, 19 recites similar elements. Further, the tokens in each of claim are 1, 13, 19 are “encrypted” and decoded with “the encryption key.” The transceiver, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and processor, are recited at a high level of generality and as such amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f), or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use/computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05h). Examiner finds no improvement to the functioning of the computer or any other technology or technical field in the “encrypting” as claimed (see MPEP 2106.05a), nor any other application or use of the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond a general like between the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05e). Examiner further notes that any sending/receiving of data, i.e. in the claimed sensor(s), is found to be adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception(s) identified (see MPEP 2106.05g).
Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO.
The independent claim(s) is/are additionally directed to claim elements such as: Claim 1 recites a “transceiver,” and a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium,” as well as a processor. Claim 13, 19 recites similar elements. Further, the tokens in each of claim are 1, 13, 19 are “encrypted” and decoded with “the encryption key.” When considered individually, the claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. This is reinforced by Applicant’s specification: the transceiver, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and processor are not discussed in any detail whatsoever beyond the summary and the claims themselves. Similarly, there is no discussion of the encryption/decoding outside of nominal mentions. These elements are all recited in functional or descriptive terms at best. Examiner finds the specification does not provide any additional information to be considered per these elements in this section.
In the interest of compact prosecution, with regard to the sensors examiner notes:
[075] “…For example, if a sensor is monitoring a single environmental aspect, such as temperature, the time of measurement, degree of variance and confidence or accuracy of that data may be conveyed to the Care Village Digital Twins of that sensor as a variance metric. In a more complex example, such as a sensor that captures audio, the variance metric may comprise a calculated value for the degree of accuracy the sensor, either directly and/or in combination with a signal processing system determines for that data set.”
[0112] “For example, in some embodiments a supervised machine learning system can be used for estimating physical quantities such as room temperature, acting as a virtual sensor based on historical temperature data, which can be used, for example, to provide missing data from real sensors that stop working or communicating under some circumstances. This approach can also be used in other embodiments to generate simulated sensor input to a sensor, device and/or environment Care Village Digital Twins, modeling a real-life behavior and/or situation for the CVDT. “ Examiner notes these are again, described in functional terms only.
When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
As per dependent claims 2-9, 11-12, 17, 18, 20-24:
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-12, 17, 18, 20-24 are not directed any additional abstract ideas and are also not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as the analyzation of the data, the permissions associated with the encryption, descriptive information about the type of information collected via the sensors, and additional clarification about the tokenization of the information and subsequent decoding. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Claims 1, 5-9, 11, 13, 17-20, are believed to be free of the prior art. The closest prior art of record is believed to be:
Poon (US 20210045682 A1)
Ramos (US 20190166101 A1)
Hendricks (US 20200170711 A1)
Ramasamy et al (“Secure Smart Wearable Computing through Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems for Health Monitoring,”
Poon teaches a tokenized monitoring system for a person, wherein sensors are used continuously to monitor real time environmental conditions of the person, and applying/storing that information as per a digital twin to consider future simulations of the person’s health and environment. Poon teaches real time reactions of a plurality of sensors to the collected information in a detected wellness, i.e. the sensor may recalibrate or adjust based on said detected readings and make inferences based on those readings.
Ramos teaches encryption of collected monitoring tokens in order to protect the privacy of the monitored subject; this information is decoded when a given wellness event is detected using the sensors/tokens.
Hendricks teaches manipulating the focus of the sensors monitoring a patient in a real life environment, including changing the frequency of the monitoring or the reporting itself, within the digital twin environment. This allows for either increased or decreased detection of an anomaly depending on the desired outcome of the monitoring – i.e. if the system is reading too many “false” anomalies or insufficient “actual” anomalies from the sensors to provide a more accurate digital twin representation.
Ramasamy teaches additional encryption methods for the sensor data.
While Poon, Ramos, and Hendricks all teach using the digital twin data to project future anomalies in the monitored digital twin, the combination does not specifically disclose the determination of sufficiency of the sensors themselves nor the relative changing of said sensors in response to determination. Examiner further notes that this finding of non-obviousness is also considered in combination with the decoding occurring after the configuration change of the sensors, i.e. the claim as a whole.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks as filed on 8 DEC 2025 have been fully reviewed.
Applicant begins with a discussion of the rejection under 35 USC 101 on page 15. Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s remarks on page 16 – Examiner finds that as currently claimed, the sensor limitations themselves appear to be analogous to adding “apply it” to the realm of the technology rather than a meaningful limitation. Examiner further notes that the “change the state” of the plurality of sensors limitations at the conclusion of the claim are written in the alternative, and notifying a stakeholder is found to be more analogous to the abstract idea than an additional element. Examiner suggests further clarifying the sensors and the reconfiguration as supported by the specification, as well as removing the notification alternative limitation in order to advance prosecution. Examiner finds similarly with regard to claims 6, 7 contrary to Applicant’s remarks on page 16.
Applicant turns to a discussion of the prior art on page 16. As discussed above, Examiner finds the amendments and the remarks persuasive and the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant turns to a discussion of newly added claims 21-24 on page 17. At least in view of the discussion regarding the independent claims, Examiner notes these remarks and finds them moot.
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 KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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 on 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.
/KATHERINE . KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687