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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to rejections of claims under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejections of claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to rejections of claims under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Beginning on page 6, the applicant argues that the claimed invention solves the technological deficiencies and improves the technical field. These arguments are fully considered but they are not persuasive. As recited, the claim merely provides calculating scores and outputting the calculated scores which are concepts performed in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgment/opinion). Therefore, the suggested improvements are in the abstract idea. For at least the reasons cited above the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments in combination with amendments, see Remarks and Claims, filed 12/31/2025, with respect to rejections of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the following:
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No 20180132794 to Lang (previously presented) to Lange in view of JP2018180826A to Takeshi et al. (previously presented) and US Pat Pub No. 20180271454 to Kramer.
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang as modified by Takeshi et al. and Kramer as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11 above, and further in view of WO2016037091 to Sales et al. (hereinafter “Sales”).
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 1-8, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because of the following analysis:
1 – statutory category: Claims 1-8 and 12 recite a series of steps and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a process. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 10-11 recite a system, and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a thing or products. See MPEP 2106.03.
2A – Prong 1: The independent claims 1, 10 and 11 recite a judicial exception by reciting the limitations of “calculating a graded score for indicating a physical condition anomaly level of the subject in a graded manner, based on the anomaly score obtained [] outputting, [] information indicating a risk distribution representing one or more proportions of one or more risk groups in an entirety of the facility, the information being based on the calculated graded score of each of the plurality of subjects”. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind or by a person using a pen and paper or using mathematical calculations which falls under mathematical concepts. Therefore, an abstract idea is involved.
It is further noted that the act of training and using a model falls under the judicial exception of mathematical calculations.
2A – Prong 2: The claim does 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 independent claims 1, 10 and 11 recite the additional limitations of “computer”, “transceiver”, “anomaly score calculator”, “grade score calculator”, “non-transitory computer-readable recording medium”, “terminal of an on-site staff member”, etc. The mentioned limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are considered to be data gathering/processing which are mere extra-solution activity. The elements amount to 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 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
2B: The emphasized elements cited above do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in 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 in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’I, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) 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, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. 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)).
Claims 2-8 and 12 and depend on claim 1. The mentioned dependent claims recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process). For example, the dependent claim recites the limitations “updating”, “outputting”, etc., are recited at a high level of generality and are mere extra-solution activity, and recited as performing generic computer functions. i.e., data processing. The elements amount to 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 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) 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, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Thus, claims 1-8 and 10-12 are directed to an abstract idea and are therefore rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat Pub No 20180132794 A1 to Lange in view of JP2018180826A to Takeshi et al. (hereinafter “Takeshi”) and US Pat Pub No. 20180271454 to Kramer.
Regarding [Claim 1, 10 and 11], Lang discloses a physical condition detection method performed by a computer, the method comprising: obtaining activity data from sensor data obtained by a sensor sensing the subject, the sensor data including a respiratory rate and a heart rate of a subject during a predetermined time period (para 0014, 0044, etc.); obtaining an anomaly score indicating a degree of an anomaly in a physical condition per the predetermined time period; calculating a graded score for indicating a physical condition anomaly level of the subject in a graded manner, based on the anomaly score obtained (para 0018 “calculating, by the at least one processor and based on the individual scores, a general score [] the health status of the patient”); and outputting the graded score calculated (para 0034 “graphical display”).
But fails to disclose calculating a plurality of features, and inputting the plurality of features calculated into a model that has learned normality or anomaly in an activity data group including a plurality of features.
Takeshi teaches that it is known to use artificial intelligence technology based on machine learning algorithm wherein the computer itself automatically learns and recognizes features of various data patterns (para 0002) in order to improve computer performance (para 0002). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Lang with the known teachings of Takeshi to provide the predictable result of improving computer performance.
Lang as modified by Takeshi renders the limitations above obvious but fails to disclose each of a plurality of subjects of nursing or care in a facility and outputting, to a terminal of an on-site staff member who provides nursing or care to the plurality of subjects, information indicating a risk distribution representing one or more proportions of one or more risk groups in an entirety of the facility, the information being based on the calculated graded score of each of the plurality of subjects.
Kramer, from a similar field of endeavor teaches monitoring data of a plurality of patients and populating in an unit view of their patients, for every patient in the unit in a single screen so that clinical staff in that unit can get an overall view of the severity levels of their patient (para 0056). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Lang as modified by Takeshi with the teachings of Kramer because doing so would allow for generating a view of all the patient’s status to provide the predictable result of allowing the clinical staff to get an overall view of the severity level of their patients.
Regarding Claim 2 Lang as modified by Takeshi and Kramer renders obvious the physical condition detection method according to claim 1, performing factor analysis when the graded score is greater than or equal to a predetermined value to analyze, for each of elements included in the activity data, whether the element is a factor for the graded score being greater than or equal to the predetermined value, the elements including the respiratory rate and the heart rate, and the outputting including, for each of the plurality of subjects, the calculated graded score and an element which has been analyzed to be the factor by the factor analysis (para 0018, 0031, “determining normal values and determining deviations of the further values”; it is understood that displaying the result would include displaying the deviation of each parameter which the doctor would understand to be “the factor” and its relevance to the overall grade; also see para 0079-0080, Kramer (para 0065).
Regarding Claim 4 Lang as modified by Takeshi and Kramer renders obvious the physical condition detection method according to claim 3, wherein in the calculating of the plurality of features, among a mean value, a maximum value, a standard deviation, a skewness, a kurtosis, and an impulse factor of each of the respiratory rate, difference data on the respiratory rate, the heart rate, and difference data on the heart rate, at least the mean value and the maximum value of each of the respiratory rate and the heart rate are calculated as the plurality of features, the impulse factor being obtained by subtracting the mean value from the maximum value (Lang, para 0063 “time-average estimate and averaged pulse oximeter reading over some specified time period”; it is noted that the claim recites “among” prior to naming the list of limitations. As recited and under its BRI, the claim only requires one of the mentioned calculations from “among” the mentioned list).
Regarding Claim 5 Lang as modified by Takeshi and Kramer renders obvious the physical condition detection method according to claim 1, wherein the model is a model that has learned normality or anomaly in the activity data group through unsupervised learning using the activity data group (Takeshi, para 0002, 0061-0070).
Regarding Claim 6 Lang as modified by Takeshi and Kramer renders obvious the physical condition detection method according to claim 5, wherein the model is a model that separates an outlier, based on a decision tree (Takeshi, para 0002, 0070). It is noted that it would be obvious to substitute one model for another. See MPEP 2143 (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 7 Lang as modified by Takeshi and Kramer renders obvious the physical condition detection method according to claim 6, wherein the model is an isolation forest model (Takeshi, para 0002, 0070). It is noted that it would be obvious to substitute one model for another. See MPEP 2143 (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
Regarding Claim 8 Lang as modified by Takeshi and Kramer renders obvious the physical condition detection method according to claim 5, wherein the model is regularly updated using the activity data obtained (Takeshi, para 0002, 0061-0070).
Claim(s) 3 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang as modified by Takeshi and Kramer as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11 above, and further in view of WO2016037091 to Sales et al. (hereinafter “Sales”).
Regarding Claim 3 Lang as modified by Takeshi and Kramer renders obvious the physical condition detection method according to claim 1, Takeshi discloses monitoring of medical parameters can be combined with monitoring particular habits of the patient (para 0073) but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the activity data includes at least one of food intake or an out of bed rate of the subject during the predetermined time, the out-of-bed a ratio of a total length of time that the subject is out of bed during the predetermined time period to a length of the predetermined time period.
Sales, from a similar field of endeavor teaches monitoring wellbeing of a user and monitoring user movement including out of bed status (para 00106) and monitoring food consumption at every meal (para 00188, 00192, 00209) in order to monitor the individual’s compliance with the specified program (para 0004). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Lang as modified by Takeshi and Kramer with the teachings of Sales to provide the predictable result of monitoring the individual’s compliance to a program in determining/monitoring wellbeing.
Regarding Claim 12 Lang as modified by Takeshi and Kramer renders obvious the physical condition detection method according to claim 1, wherein the respiratory rate and the heart rate are obtained from the sensor data (para 0014, 0044, etc.), but fails to disclose the activity data further includes food intake and an out-of-bed rate of the subject during the predetermined time period, and the food intake is obtained from recorded data that includes amounts of food taken by the subject in a morning, an afternoon, and an evening, the recorded data being input by the on-site staff member.
Sales, from a similar field of endeavor teaches monitoring wellbeing of a user and monitoring user movement including out of bed status (para 00106) and monitoring food consumption at every meal (para 00188, 00192, 00209) in order to monitor the individual’s compliance with the specified program (para 0004). It would have been obvious before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Lang as modified by Takeshi and Kramer with the teachings of Sales to provide the predictable result of monitoring the individual’s compliance to a program in determining/monitoring wellbeing.
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 SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 pm.
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, Jennifer S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights