DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/8/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9 and 10 have been amended. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9, 10, 12-14 and 16 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 2, 4, 9 and 12 recite the limitation "the activity level". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 1, 6, 9 and 10 recite the limitation "the digital computer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 13 and 14 recite the limitation "the computer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Here, under step 1 of the Alice analysis, method claims 1, 2 and 4-6 are directed to a series of steps. Thus the claims are directed to a process.
Under step 2A Prong One of the analysis, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite registering the use of pieces of playground furniture, including providing, mapping, storing, defining, collecting, computing, comparing, and identifying steps.
The limitations of providing, mapping, storing, defining, collecting, computing, comparing, and identifying, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers organizing human activity concepts, but for the recitation of generic computer components.
Specifically, the claim elements providing a children's playground comprising a number of pieces of playground furniture; mapping the children's playground by overlaying a grid on a camera view of the children's playground, so as to provide the grid with a number of meshes identifying a respective location of each piece of the playground furniture; storing information defining the grid; defining, for each of the meshes, an activity reference level, based at least in part, on a type of piece of playground furniture located in the mesh, if any; storing information regarding the activity reference level, wherein the activity reference level is based at least in part on the type of piece of playground furniture located in the mesh; collecting the captured activity data; computing an activity level in the meshes of the grid based on the captured activity data, the activity level for each mesh comprising a composite activity intensity score based on at least a proximity score based on a number of detected persons positioned within the mesh relative to the piece of playground furniture located in the mesh, a movement-coincidence score derived from correlating detected movement of the detected persons with a movement pattern of the piece of playground furniture located in the mesh, and amotion-pattern classification score generated by a neural network trained to recognize activity-specific motion patterns associated with the type of piece of playground furniture located in the mesh; comparing the computed activity level in the meshes with the activity reference levels in the meshes stored; identifying whether the activity level for each respective piece of playground furniture is within a predetermined range based on the activity reference level for that specific piece of playground furniture; and generating an electronic alert when the activity level is outside the predetermined range.
That is, other than reciting at least one digital computer having digital storage and at least one activity detector configured to anonymize captured activity data and to encrypt the anonymized data prior to transmission, the claim limitations merely cover managing personal behavior, including following rules or instructions, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims include at least one digital computer having digital storage and at least one activity detector configured to anonymize captured activity data and to encrypt the anonymized data prior to transmission. The at least one digital computer having digital storage and at least one activity detector configured to anonymize captured activity data and to encrypt the anonymized data prior to transmission in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As a result, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 element of at least one digital computer having digital storage and at least one activity detector configured to anonymize captured activity data and to encrypt the anonymized data prior to transmission amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
None of the dependent claims recite additional limitations that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2 and 4-6 further describe determining whether the activity level for each respective piece of playground furniture, the electronic alert, and the digital computer. A more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea.
Under step 2B of the analysis, the claims include, inter alia, at least one digital computer having digital storage and at least one activity detector configured to anonymize captured activity data and to encrypt the anonymized data prior to transmission.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
There isn’t any improvement to another technology or technical field, or the functioning of the computer itself. Moreover, individually, there are not any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, i.e., implementation via a computer system. Further, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually. There is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
In addition, as discussed in paragraphs 0035 and 0036 of the specification, “Turning now to Fig. 3 and 4, examples of the data processing in the computer 4 that could be performed are described. In Fig. 3 the computer 4 receives, in box 310, input data from the one or more activity detectors 3. In box 320 the computer performs object detection. How this object detection is performed depends on the input from the activity detectors 3. If for instance the sensor module 301 is an imaging chip, pattern recognition algorithms adapted to recognize objects, such as persons 5, may be applied. The persons 5 or other objects identified, may then, in box 330, be tracked for motion including amount and speed, etc. The results can then, in box 340, be stored in a database.”
As such, this disclosure supports the finding that no more than a general purpose computer, performing generic computer functions, is required by the claims.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l et al., No. 13-298 (U.S. June 19, 2014).
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant argues the claims as now amended do not merely recite those generic verbs. Instead, they define a specific, multi-factor computational methodology for quantifying activity in each mesh of a sensor-derived spatial grid. The composite scoring requires: accumulating proximity scores across multiple simultaneously tracked persons relative to each piece of playground furniture; computing movement-coincidence scores by correlating detected person movement vectors with the movement patterns of movable playground furniture such as swings, see-saws, and rocking horses; and generating motion-pattern classification scores through a trained neural network configured to recognize activity-specific motion patterns associated with the particular type of playground furniture present in each mesh. These operations cannot practically be performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) (a claim does not recite a mental process when it includes steps that cannot practically be performed mentally).
This is directly consistent with the USPTO's own subject matter eligibility guidance. In Subject Matter Eligibility Example 39 (2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance), the Office analyzed a claim directed to training a neural network for facial detection and determined that the claim did not recite a mental process because the recited operations, including applying the neural network to training sets and using the network to classify inputs, are not practically performable in the human mind. The same reasoning applies here. Amended claim 1 requires that one component of the composite activity intensity score is "a motion-pattern classification score generated by a neural network trained to recognize activity-specific motion patterns associated with the type of piece of playground furniture located in the mesh." Like the neural network operations in Example 39, this step requires machine-learning-based inference and pattern matching across trained weights and nodes, which is inherently computational and cannot be reduced to a mental process. Moreover, the neural network score is not an isolated addition. It is one factor in a composite scoring methodology that also requires correlating person movement with furniture movement patterns across multiple meshes of a camera-derived spatial grid, further placing the claims beyond what any human observer could perform mentally.
Nor do the claims fall within "certain methods of organizing human activity." The Office Action previously characterized the claim limitations as "managing personal behavior, including following rules or instructions." But the amended claims do not manage anyone's behavior. They define how a computer system processes sensor data through a specific algorithmic pipeline, spatial grid mapping from a camera view, multi-factor composite scoring with neural network inference, threshold comparison, and alert generation. This is a technological data-processing methodology, not a set of rules for organizing human conduct.
The Office Action previously cited Content Extraction v. Wells Fargo Bank (Fed. Cir. 2014) for the proposition that the activity detector functions as an "obvious data gathering mechanism." Office Action at 9. Applicant respectfully distinguishes Content Extraction, where the claim at issue recited using a scanner to recognize and store data through conventional OCR, a known, single-step data capture technique. Here, the activity detector is not merely gathering data; the claims require that the detector be specifically configured to anonymize captured activity data and encrypt the anonymized data prior to transmission, and the data captured by the detector is then processed through a defined composite scoring methodology that includes neural network inference. This goes well beyond the passive data capture at issue in Content Extraction.
Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims, viewed as an ordered combination, reflect the type of non-conventional and non-generic arrangement recognized as supplying an inventive concept in BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred by failing to recognize that an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional arrangement of otherwise conventional elements. Here, the ordered combination is: camera-view-based grid mapping -> per- mesh, furniture-type-keyed reference levels -- edge anonymization and encryption -- composite multi-factor scoring (proximity + movement-coincidence + neural network classification) - threshold comparison -- alert generation. Individually, cameras, grids, neural networks, and encryption may be known. But the specific arrangement, in which a camera-derived spatial grid anchors equipment-specific reference levels, a trained neural network contributes one factor in a composite utilization score computed per mesh, and privacy is enforced at the device level before any data is transmitted, is not a conventional or generic approach to activity monitoring. This ordered combination provides the claimed system with capabilities that no individual element provides alone: the ability to generate equipment-specific, spatially granular utilization metrics from privacy-preserving sensor data, and to trigger maintenance alerts based on deviations from type-specific baselines.
The present claims are also analogous to those found patent-eligible in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco, 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In McRO, the Federal Circuit held that claims reciting specific rules for automating a previously manual process, lip synchronization in computer animation, were not directed to an abstract idea because the rules defined a specific technique that improved the technological process. Here, the three-factor scoring methodology (proximity scoring, movement-coincidence correlation, and neural network motion-pattern classification) defines specific rules for how the system quantifies activity in each mesh. These rules are not abstract formulations. They prescribe a particular computational technique, including neural network inference, that replaces what would otherwise be subjective, manual assessment of playground utilization by a groundskeeper or janitor. As in McRO, the incorporation of these specific rules into the claimed process is what distinguishes the claims from an abstract idea.
Additionally, the reasoning from Example 39 of the 2019 PEG applies with equal force at Step 2B. The Office there recognized that claims involving neural network operations are not merely conventional computer functions. They represent a specific form of computation that is qualitatively different from routine data processing. Here, the neural network is not bolted onto a generic data-collection claim as a post hoc addition; it is structurally integrated as one of three factors in a composite scoring methodology, each factor addressing a different dimension of activity (spatial proximity, movement correlation, and learned motion-pattern classification). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As an initial point, the rejection does not allege that the claims fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Rather, as described in the specification, “According to a further preferred embodiment, the underutilization alert is sent to a maintenance responsible authority. This may prompt a groundskeeper or janitor to check whether something is wrong with the furniture, e.g. a see-saw or a swing not being used due to a defect that needs to be repaired. This could trigger prompt repair and increase the utilization of the activity area.” “A warning of low activity in certain zones could then be given in order to instigate further investigation of the cause. If the zone containing the rocking horse 2' in Fig. 1 is suddenly permanently below a threshold an alert could be given by the computer 4 to a groundskeeper or a janitor to check whether the rocking horse 2' is out of order and, if so, take steps to have it repaired. The warning could also be an alert to further investigate the reasons and possibly reconsider the layout of the playground 1.”
“If mapping of activity zones onto known information 10 about the layout of the playground 1, as defined by the stored information about the grid, yields, in box 405, that at least during a predetermined period, such as recess, is below a given threshold the zone, and hence the furniture 2' is underutilized, a warning may be given in box 406. This warning could be an alert to a maintenance responsible authority, such as a groundskeeper or 15 janitor to check whether the furniture 2' is defective and needs repair. This allows efficient maintenance of the playground 1, without spending man-hours on active and mostly unnecessary routine checks.”
Following, the claim limitations merely cover managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Here, the at least one activity detector (e.g., digital cameras for visible and/or infrared light, laser scanners, LiDAR scanners, range sensors, stereo cameras, structured light sensors, etc. as well as combinations thereof. See specification) configured to anonymize captured activity data and to encrypt the anonymized data prior to transmission merely functions as an obvious data gathering mechanism. This type of data gathering is similar to that seen in Content Extraction v. Wells Fargo Bank (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 2014), which found that a scanner using known OCR technology was not significantly more than the abstract idea. Following, and contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the capturing and encrypting of the anonymize captured activity data is considered obvious data gathering, according to known techniques.
Moreover, and contrary to Applicant's assertion, the claims here are not similar to the claims in BASCOM, which were deemed eligible, since when combined, an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, thus amounting to significantly more than a judicial exception.
The BASCOM court agreed that the additional elements were generic computer, network, and Internet components that did not amount to significantly more when considered individually, but explained that the district court erred by failing to recognize that when combined, an inventive concept may be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements, i.e., the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user.
Here, taken as a combination, the limitations add nothing more than what is present when the limitations are considered individually Unlike BASCOM, here there are no elements similar to the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. As such, there is no indication that the combination provides any effect regarding the functioning of the computer or any improvement to another technology.
Additionally, and contrary to Applicant's assertion, the claims here are not similar to the claims in McRO, which were determined to be an improvement to computer technology. In McRO, the Federal Circuit held the claimed methods of automatic lip synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-implemented rules patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because they were not directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A of the USPTO's SME guidance). The basis for the McRO court's decision was that the claims were directed to an improvement in computer-related technology (allowing computers to produce "accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters" that previously could only be produced by human animators), and thus did not recite a concept similar to previously identified abstract ideas.
The McRO court thus relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.
Here, there is no improvement to any computer technology per se here, nor is there a set of "rules" (basically mathematical relationships) that improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of a function not previously performable by a computer. Further, the specification does not describe a teaching about how the claimed invention improves a computer or other technology Rather, the abstract idea of registering the use of pieces of playground furniture, including providing, mapping, storing, defining, collecting, determining, comparing, and generating steps is merely implemented on a computer.
Regarding Example 39, the example is hypothetical and only intended to be illustrative of the claim analysis under the 2019 PEG. The example should be interpreted based on the fact patterns set forth as other fact patterns may have different eligibility outcomes. Moreover, Applicant’s claim language is wholly unrelated to Example 39 (Method for Training a Neural Network for Facial Detection), as Applicant is likely aware.
As discussed in the analysis of Example 39, the claim does not recite any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the 2019 PEG. For instance, the claim does not recite any mathematical relationships, formulas, or calculations. While some of the limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, the mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims. Further, the claim does not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in the human mind. Finally, the claim does not recite any method of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic concept or managing interactions between people. Thus, the claim is eligible because it does not recite a judicial exception.
Contrarily, here, as discussed above, the claim limitations merely cover managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions, thus falling within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Moreover, and importantly, under the Step 2A Prong Two analysis, the “at least one digital computer” fails to implement each step in method claims 1, 2 and 4-6, thus failing to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55. Besides the abstract idea, the claims partially include at least one digital computer having digital storage and at least one activity detector configured to anonymize captured activity data and to encrypt the anonymized data prior to transmission.
The at least one digital computer having digital storage and at least one activity detector configured to anonymize captured activity data and to encrypt the anonymized data prior to transmission in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in the claims do no more than use computer components as a tool (i.e., at least one digital computer having digital storage and at least one activity detector configured to anonymize captured activity data and to encrypt the anonymized data prior to transmission). There is no change to the computers and/or other technology recited in the claims, thus the claims do not improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE D BOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-6726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10a-6:30p.
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, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached at (571) 272-6045. 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.
/ANDRE D BOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 May 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights