DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the initial filing filed on February 29, 2024. The claim has been examined and is currently pending.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim is objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claim is not numbered. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim is objected to because of the following informalities: the term, “the recommended correction actions” lacks antecedent basis in line 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim is objected to because of the following informalities: the term, “the source” lacks antecedent basis in line 7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim is objected to because of the following informalities: Remove parentheses and information within parentheses in line 9. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim is objected to because of the following informalities: the term, “the main” lacks antecedent basis in line 9. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim is objected to because of the following informalities: the term, “the highest” lacks antecedent basis in line 9. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim is objected to because of the following informalities: the term, “the early pandemic” lacks antecedent basis in line 10. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim is objected to because of the following informalities: the term, “the main use” lacks antecedent basis in line 11. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim is objected to because of the following informalities: the term, “the air” lacks antecedent basis in lines 13-14. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim does not positively recite steps/limitations associated with the invention. 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.
Claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
ALICE/ MAYO: TWO-PART ANALYSIS
2A. First, a determination whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Prong 1: A determination whether the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea).
Groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Mathematical concepts- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations.
Certain methods of organizing human activity- fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Prong 2: A determination whether the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) is integrated into a practical application.
Considerations indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception
Considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
2B. Second, a determination whether the claim provides an inventive concept (i.e., Whether the claim(s) include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
Considerations indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Improvement to the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine.
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
Considerations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance.
Merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. NOTE: The only consideration that does not overlap with the considerations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application associated with step 2A: Prong 2.
See also, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance; Federal Register; Vol. 84, No. 4; Monday, January 7, 2019
Claims is 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.
1: Statutory Category
Applicant’s claimed invention, as described in independent claim is directed to a predictive modelling.
2(A): The claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
PRONG 1: The claim(s) recite a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Methods of Organizing Human Activity
Independent claim recites limitations, “Predictive modelling has been demonstrated in a software application for mobile or personal computer which forecasts site-specific, user-specific recommendations for different levels of physical distancing from novel airborne pathogen sources, and it can also forecast corrective and/or safety actions to mitigate other environmental hazards, and be combined with other, existing environmental predictive safety models for an economic full safety software package, with the recommended corrective actions including social distances, , safety actions, and/or control of the source, receptor, or path in between, with early safety actions and distancing found to be key to preventing future mass death from novel pandemics (Kaur 2021), the main initial calculation with the highest degree of accuracy will be social distancing and appropriate actions to maintain survival from the early pandemic identification and preliminary transmissibility characterization studies, because the main use is outdoor calculation of safety actions since the modelling currently relies on meteorological data, but this invention with modelling would likewise predict mitigation actions and quantities anytime the air or other environmental/ambient media behaves similarly.” which is directed to the abstract idea of managing personal behavior under methods of organizing human activity. Specifically, the claim is directed to managing a person’s social distance between or among other people based on meteorological or weather conditions and other parameters. The management of a person’s social distance is a form of managing personal behavior.
PRONG 2: The judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) is not integrated into a practical application.
The applicant has not shown or demonstrated any of the requirements described above under "integration into a practical application" under step 2A. Specifically, the applicant's limitations are not "integrated into a practical application" because they are adding words "apply it" with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field has not been shown or disclosed (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the applicant’s limitations are not “significantly more” because they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and generally linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The applicant’s claimed limitations do not demonstrate an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, effecting a transformation or reduction of particular article to a different state or thing. The current application does not amount to 'significantly more' than the abstract idea as described above. The claim does not include additional elements or limitations individually or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Specifically, the individual elements of a mobile or personal computer, software application, and software package amount to no more than implementing an idea with a computerized system and they are adding words “apply it” with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea merely as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The additional elements taken in combination add nothing more than what is present when the elements are considered individually. Therefore, based on the two-part Alice Corp. analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the exception (i.e., abstract idea) into a patent eligible application.
Since the claim(s) recite a judicial exception and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claim(s) is/are “directed to” the judicial exception. Thus, the claim(s) must be reviewed under the second step of the Alice/ Mayo analysis to determine whether the abstract idea has been applied in an eligible manner.
2(B): The claims do not provide an inventive concept (i.e., The claim(s) do not include additional elements, or combinations of elements, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea)).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element(s) in the claim amounts 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 using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
For these reasons, there is no invention concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it appears to be directed to a predictive model.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Blanch et al. US Publication 20220272064 A1.
As per the claim below, Blanch teaches:
Predictive modelling has been demonstrated in a software application for mobile or personal computer which forecasts site-specific, user-specific recommendations for different levels of physical distancing from novel airborne pathogen sources, and it can also forecast corrective and/or safety actions to mitigate other environmental hazards, and be combined with other, existing environmental predictive safety models for an economic full safety software package, with the recommended corrective actions including social distances, , safety actions, and/or control of the source, receptor, or path in between, with early safety actions and distancing found to be key to preventing future mass death from novel pandemics (Kaur 2021), the main initial calculation with the highest degree of accuracy will be social distancing and appropriate actions to maintain survival from the early pandemic identification and preliminary transmissibility characterization studies, because the main use is outdoor calculation of safety actions since the modelling currently relies on meteorological data, but this invention with modelling would likewise predict mitigation actions and quantities anytime the air or other environmental/ambient media behaves similarly (paragraphs 0018-0019, 0021, 0024, and 0028 “Client computing device 110 can be one or more of a laptop computer, a tablet computer, a smart phone, smart watch, a smart speaker, or any programmable electronic device capable of communicating with various components and devices within distributed data processing environment 100, via network 102. Client computing device 110 may be a wearable computer. Wearable computers are miniature electronic devices that may be worn by the bearer under, with, or on top of clothing, as well as in or connected to glasses, hats, or other accessories. Wearable computers are especially useful for applications that require more complex computational support than merely hardware coded logics. In one embodiment, the wearable computer may be in the form of a head mounted display. The head mounted display may take the form-factor of a pair of glasses. In an embodiment, the wearable computer may be in the form of a smart watch…”, “Social distancing application 112 provides an interface between social distancing program 106 on server computer 104 and a user of client computing device 110. In one embodiment, social distancing application 112 is mobile application software. Mobile application software, or an “app,” is a computer program designed to run on smart phones, tablet computers and other mobile devices. In one embodiment, social distancing application 112 may be a graphical user interface (GUI) or a web user interface (WUI) and can display text, documents, web browser windows, user options, application interfaces, and instructions for operation, and include the information (such as graphic, text, and sound) that a program presents to a user and the control sequences the user employs to control the program. Social distancing application 112 enables a user of client computing device 110 to receive notifications regarding social distancing protocols, physical space utilization density, and recommendations for improving social distancing in a physical space. Social distancing application 112 also enables a user of client computing device 110 to provide user profile information and preferences to social distancing program 106.”, “…A sensor is a device that detects or measures a physical property and then records or otherwise responds to that property, such as vibration, chemicals, radio frequencies, environment, weather, humidity, light, etc…Sensor(s) 114 and sensor(s) 118 may be able to detect weather conditions, such as air temperature, relative humidity, presence and type of precipitation, wind speed, etc., as social distancing protocols may depend on the weather conditions…”, and “Social distancing program 106 retrieves associated metadata (step 204). In an embodiment, in addition to the data used to monitor physical space utilization, social distancing program 106 retrieves metadata associated with the space utilization data from database 108. The retrieved metadata may include, but is not limited to, a date and/or time associated with the space utilization data, time spent in a physical space by a user, total time spent by all users of a physical space, current weather conditions, and décor, such as wall color, of the physical space. Social distancing program 106 gleans insights regarding the utilization of the space based on the retrieved metadata. For example, social distancing program 106 determines that a particular space is crowded because it is currently raining outside. In another example, social distancing program 106 determines which spaces are underutilized based on the lack of attraction to the decor or furniture in a space by comparing utilization of a plurality of spaces. In an embodiment, metadata associated with the utilization of a physical space also includes specific data describing the space. The specific data may include, but is not limited to, a CAD plan of the space, an OSCRE code associated with the space, a building identification, a floor number, temperature and/or humidity in the space, a noise level, and a lighting level.”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Merjanian et al. US Publication 20220285036 A1 Systems and Methods for Intelligent and Privacy-Centric Contact Tracing
Merjanian discloses “FIG. 2 shows several distance measures (e.g., X1, X2, X3, X4) that may be determined and/or collected by the system 100 to accurately identify exposed nodes 122 and evaluate when a “contact” or other traceable event has occurred between two mobile nodes. As discussed above, reference identifiers beginning with 220 depict user devices and reference identifiers beginning with 230 depict beacons. The following distances are described in reference to these categorizations and begin with (1) X1: the distance between user device 220C and user device 220D; (2) X2: the distance between user device 220B and beacon 230E; (3) X3 the distance between user device 220A and beacon 230A; (4) the distance between user device 220E and user device 220F. Distances between mobile nodes can be determined by respective locations of the mobile nodes, which may be determined in whole or in part by the mobile nodes' position/proximity relative to a stationary node, and the derived distances can be used as thresholds for a 2-layer proximity analysis (which may be critical when applied in connection with infectious distances). In embodiments, if a node is in within a close contact threshold with respect to another node, a record of the close contact is collected. The record may be associated with a user identifier (e.g., tied to a user ID of the node) stored in the EME 240. Close contact thresholds may be preset, modifiable, or dynamically adaptable based on external conditions, and can be based on the characteristics of the pathogen of interest. For example, a close contact may be defined for COVID-19 purposes as occurring when any individual who was within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes starting from 2 days before illness onset (or prior to positive pathogen collection for asymptomatic individuals) until the time the individual is isolated. Thus, a contact threshold between mobile nodes can be 6 feet and continuous for 15 minutes. In another example, a close contact may be defined for a different disease as occurring at a first distance/time threshold if the temperature falls within a first range (e.g., a temperature range at which the pathogen can live longer) and a second distance/time threshold if the temperature falls within a second range (e.g., a temperature range at which the pathogen cannot survive for as long), and the close contact threshold may dynamically adapt based on the temperature in the relevant area (as may be measured by the mobile nodes in the zone of interest, as may be measured by the stationary nodes in the zone of interest, or as may be obtained from an external resource such as the Weather Channel® database from IBM®). Other static and/or dynamic thresholds may be used and based on distance between nodes for any purpose and based on any factor that may be relevant to the contact or tracing analysis (e.g., exposure time to the infectious agent or pathogen of concern, duration of an event, etc.).” (paragraph 0038).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L HAMILTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1837. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30-5:30 pm EST.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at (571)272-4530. 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.
/MATTHEW L HAMILTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681