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 .
Status of Claims
This is a non-final rejection in response to remarks/amendments filed on 06/11/2026. Claims 11 and 13 have been amended. Claims 11-13 and 15-19 remain pending and are examined herein.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to Chinese Patent Application No. CN202310503841.3, filed on 05/06/2023.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/11/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-13 and 15-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The amendments to claim 11 recite new matter that lacks support in the originally filed disclosure, whether expressly, implicitly, or inherently. The amendments which lack support are:
-using a camera arranged at each exit of each housing estate of the target neighbourhood
-wherein the detecting comprises:
-capturing, by the camera arranged at each exit of each housing estate of the target neighbourhood
However, the specification lacks any mention of a “camera,” nor any synonymous terms such as “image capturing device,” “video capturing device,” or “sensor.” In fact, the specification lacks any description of any structural components that performs the “obtaining a face image” steps, therefore, the original disclosure does not support a camera arranged at each exit of each housing estate. The examiner notes that inherency does not apply, because as stated in MPEP 2163(II)(3)(b), “Under the doctrine of inherent disclosure, when a specification describes an invention that has certain undisclosed yet inherent properties, that specification serves as adequate written description to support a subsequent patent application that explicitly recites the invention’s inherent properties.” However, “obtaining face images” does not inherently require a camera, as it is broad enough to include already captured images. Furthermore, MPEP 2163(II)(3)(b) states, “When an explicit limitation in a claim "is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation." Since the obtaining of face images not “require” a camera, as there are other means to “obtain face images,” the written description of the originally filed disclosure does not support a “camera.” For purposes of compact prosecution only, the claims are fully considered under 35 U.S.C. 101 including the camera as an additional element.
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 11-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or Composition of Matter?
Claim 11: A method for...
Therefore, the claims are directed to the potentially eligible subject matter categories, since claim 11 is directed to a method which falls under “process.” Therefore the claims are to be further analyzed under step 2 of the 2 step analysis.
Step 2a Prong 1: Is the claim reciting a Judicial Exception(A Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon (Product of Nature), or An Abstract Idea?)
The claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification are analyzed herein. Representative claim 11 is marked up, isolating the abstract idea from additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is in bold and the additional elements have been italicized as follows:
Claim 11: A method for evaluating neighbourhood aging suitability based on multi-source data fusion, comprising:
S1, detecting a quantity of people entering and leaving a target neighbourhood by face recognition technology of each housing estate of the target neighbourhood using a camera arranged at each exit of each housing estate of the target neighbourhood, and detecting a quantity of elderly people leaving each housing estate of the target neighbourhood and a quantity of elderly people entering each housing estate of the target neighbourhood in a set period, wherein the detecting comprises:
capturing, by the camera arranged at each exit of each housing estate of the target neighbourhood, a face image of each leaving people and a face image of each entering people of each housing estate of the target neighbourhood in the set period;
obtaining a face image of each elderly people in each housing estate of the target neighbourhood;
comparing, for each housing estate of the target neighbourhood, the captured face image of each leaving people with the face image of each elderly people in that housing estate, and if the captured face image of one leaving people is successfully matched with the face image of one elderly people, marking the captured face image as a face image of a leaving elderly people;
counting a quantity of the face images of the leaving elderly people of each housing estate of the target neighbourhood, and taking the quantity of the face images as a quantity SL; of the elderly people leaving each housing estate of the target neighbourhood in the set period, wherein i is a serial number of each housing estate, and i = 1, 2, ..., n; and
in a same way, obtaining a quantity JL, of the elderly people entering each housing estate of the target neighbourhood in the set period;
S2, analyzing traffic suitability of the target neighbourhood: analyzing a mobility suitability coefficient of the elderly people corresponding to each housing estate of the target neighbourhood, by:
Obtaining a quantity αi of residents in each housing estate of the target neighbourhood, obtaining a quantity βi of the elderly people in each housing estate of the target neighbourhood from a target neighbourhood management office, and then analyzing a proportion BPi= βi/αi of the quantity of the elderly people in each housing estate of the target neighbourhood;
Comparing the proportion of the quantity of the elderly people in each housing estate of the target neighbourhood with a proportion range of a quantity of elderly people suitable for leaving in each unit time stored in a cloud database, and selecting a quantity of the elderly people suitable for leaving in each unit time corresponding to each housing estate of the target neighbourhood;
Multiplying the quantity of the elderly people suitable for leaving in each unit time corresponding to each housing estate with a duration corresponding to the set period to obtain a quantity SYi of the elderly people suitable for leaving corresponding to each housing estate;
Analyzing a suitability coefficient
ε
i
=
(
e
+
1
)
(
S
Y
i
1
+
|
S
L
i
-
S
Y
i
|
)
Of the quantity of the elderly people suitable for leaving corresponding to each housing estate of the target neighbourhood, wherein e is a natural constant;
In a same way, analyzing a suitability coefficient ni of a quantity of elderly people suitable for entering corresponding to each housing estate of the target neighbourhood; and
Comprehensively analyzing the mobility suitability coefficient
u
i
=
…
Of the elderly people corresponding to each housing estate of the target neighbourhood, wherein l1 and l2 are present influence weight factors respectively corresponding to the suitability coefficient of the quantity of the elderly people suitable for entering and the suitability coefficient of the quantity of the elderly people suitable for leaving;
And then analyzing a traffic convenience coefficient JB corresponding to the target neighbourhood accordingly;
S3, evaluating perfection of leisure facilities of the target neighbourhood: obtaining an occupied region of each housing estate of the target neighbourhood, obtaining an area of the occupied region of each housing estate of the target neighbourhood, and analyzing a perfection coefficient of the leisure facilities corresponding to the target neighbourhood accordingly;
S4, analyzing microenvironment suitability of the target neighbourhood: obtaining environmental parameters of each housing estate of the target neighbourhood by detecting, using a carbon dioxide gas detector, a noise detector, and an air quality detector arranged at each layout point of each housing estate of the target neighbourhood, a carbon dioxide concentration, a sound decibel, and a PM2.5 value at each detection time point, and then analyzing a microenvironment suitability coefficient HJ corresponding to the target neighbourhood accordingly;
S5, evaluating aging suitability of the target neighbourhood: evaluating an evaluation coefficient of aging residential suitability corresponding to the target neighbourhood
S6, processing the target neighbourhood: displaying the evaluation coefficient of aging residential suitability corresponding to the target neighbourhood, and initiating an aging suitability transformation of the target neighbourhood based on the displayed evaluation coefficient.
When evaluating the bolded limitations of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it is clear that representative claim 11 recites at least one abstract idea subcategory under “certain methods of organizing human activity.” This abstract idea grouping found in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) includes concepts related to “fundamental economic principles or practices,” “commercial or legal interactions,” and “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” The present invention falls under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people which include social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. When considering the steps in bold, for example, detecting a quantity of people, analyzing traffic suitability, evaluating perfection of leisure facilities, analyzing microenvironment suitability of the target neighborhood, evaluating aging suitability of the target neighborhood, and displaying the evaluation coefficient of aging residential suitability, the steps are no more than “certain methods of organizing human activity” because it describes an advertising, marketing or sales activity or behavior of scoring and displaying the suitability of a particular environment for a particular group of people (elders), which would fall at least under “commercial or legal interactions.” Furthermore, claims recite mere data processing steps towards performing an analysis on human behavior, resulting in an output of the data in the form of displaying a score. This is no more than “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” because it retries data reflective of social behavior and results in a display of the data. Even when considering the amended limitations, “capturing, by the camera arranged at each exit of each housing estate of the target neighbourhood, a face image of each leaving people and a face image of each entering people of each housing estate of the target neighbourhood in the set period;
obtaining a face image of each elderly people in each housing estate of the target neighbourhood;
comparing, for each housing estate of the target neighbourhood, the captured face image of each leaving people with the face image of each elderly people in that housing estate, and if the captured face image of one leaving people is successfully matched with the face image of one elderly people, marking the captured face image as a face image of a leaving elderly people;
counting a quantity of the face images of the leaving elderly people of each housing estate of the target neighbourhood, and taking the quantity of the face images as a quantity SL; of the elderly people leaving each housing estate of the target neighbourhood in the set period, wherein i is a serial number of each housing estate, and i = 1, 2, ..., n; and
in a same way, obtaining a quantity JL, of the elderly people entering each housing estate of the target neighbourhood in the set period;” this is more of the same abstract idea because it merely describes the concept of comparing a user’s face to the known captured faces of the elderly people, and counting the users. When considered in its broadest reasonable interpretation, this is no more than “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships” between people, because it is no more than a set of rules or instructions to a user to perform a data collection process that is ultimately used to generate a coefficient for aging suitability. As a result, this is no more than abstract “data collection, data analysis and displaying the results of the analysis.” Furthermore, even when considering the additional step of “initiating an aging suitability transformation of the target neighbourhood based on the displayed evaluation coefficient,” this is claimed at such a high level of generality that it is still “managing personal behavior,” because it does not describe a specific manner in which the transformation is initiated, therefore, it is broad enough to include instructions to individuals to manage their personal behavior to initiate such a transformation.
Furthermore, in addition to reciting certain methods of organizing human activity, it is clear that the claims recite an abstract idea under “mathematical concepts.” MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) provides further explanation on the abstract idea groupings. It should be noted that these groupings are not mutually exclusive, i.e., some claims recite limitations that fall within more than one grouping or sub-grouping. In this, a claim reciting performing mathematical calculations to carry out “certain methods of organizing human activity” may be considered to fall within the mathematical concepts grouping and the mental process grouping. Accordingly, examiners should identify at least one abstract idea grouping, but preferably identify all groupings to the extent possible, if a claim limitation(s) is determined to fall within multiple groupings and proceed with the analysis in Step 2A Prong Two.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) defines “mathematical concepts” as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. When determining whether a claim recites a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations), examiners should consider whether the claim recites a mathematical concept or merely limitations that are based on or involve a mathematical concept. A claim does not recite a mathematical concept (i.e., the claim limitations do not fall within the mathematical concept grouping), if it is only based on or involves a mathematical concept. Since each of the amended steps recite either mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations, the steps recite an abstract idea. Furthermore, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states, “A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.” Therefore, the steps of “S2, analyzing traffic suitability of the target neighbourhood: analyzing a mobility suitability coefficient of the elderly people corresponding to each housing estate of the target neighbourhood, by:”, “analyzing a proportion BPi= βi/αi of the quantity of the elderly people in each housing estate of the target neighbourhood;”, “Comparing the proportion of the quantity of the elderly people in each housing estate of the target neighbourhood with a proportion range of a quantity of elderly people suitable for leaving in each unit time stored in a cloud database, and selecting a quantity of the elderly people suitable,” “Multiplying the quantity of the elderly people suitable... with a duration corresponding to the set period to obtain a quantity SYi ”, “Analyzing a suitability coefficient wherein e is a natural constant;” “analyzing a suitability coefficient ni,” “Comprehensively analyzing the mobility suitability coefficient... wherein l1 and l2 are present influence weight factors...” “analyzing a traffic convenience coefficient JB;” “S3, evaluating perfection of leisure facilities of the target neighbourhood,” “analyzing a perfection coefficient of the leisure facilities,” “S4, analyzing microenvironment suitability of the target neighbourhood,” “analyzing a microenvironment suitability coefficient HJ,” “S5, evaluating aging suitability,” and “evaluating an evaluation coefficient of aging residential suitability,” are all examples of steps that are considered mathematical operations given their broadest reasonable interpretation. When considering that the claims merely recite the collection of the data, and then recite performing the steps above, it is clear that the claims at least recite an abstract idea, and are not just “based on or involving” a mathematical concept.
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea under “certain methods of organizing human activity.”
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claim 11 recites the following additional elements:
-face recognition technology in claim 11
--cloud database in claim 11
-camera arranged at each exit of each housing estate of the target neighbourhood in claim 11
-carbon dioxide gas detector, noise detector, air quality detector in claim 11
The additional element of using face recognition technology to detect a quantity of individuals or cloud databases to store is no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer on its ordinary capacity (MPEP 2106.05(f)). In this case, the claims recite “face recognition technology” and “cloud databases” at a high level of generality such that they are merely claiming the idea or outcome without the necessary detail to arrive at the outcome. Furthermore, there are no technological improvements directed to “face recognition technology” or “cloud databases” because even the amended limitations above merely recite face recognition at a high-level of generality such that it encapsulates mere instructions to manage personal behavior. Furthermore, implementing the data collection of the abstract idea on devices in their ordinary capacity (capturing images using a camera, detector for detecting carbon dioxide, detector for detecting noise, and air quality detector) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Even when considering the additional element individually or as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claims are still so broad such that they are no more than an example of “apply it” or mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on technology without providing the specific structure or mechanisms to arrive at the claimed solution. See MPEP 2106.05(f) for more information. Furthermore, the combination of elements are not recited with enough specificity to be considered for the “improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field.” Please refer to MPEP 2106.05(a) for information regarding Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field.
Therefore, claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea without integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 11 recites the following additional elements:
-face recognition technology in claim 11
--cloud database in claim 11
-camera arranged at each exit of each housing estate of the target neighbourhood in claim 11
-carbon dioxide gas detector, noise detector, air quality detector in claim 11
These additional elements have not been found to include significantly more for the same reasons set forth in the Prong 2 rejection, specifically, that claiming “face recognition technology,” is no more than an example of “apply it” or mere instructions to apply an exception. Furthermore, using Furthermore, capturing images using a camera, detector for detecting carbon dioxide, detector for detecting noise, and air quality detector also fall within “apply it” because they are no more than using devices in their ordinary capacity to perform tasks related to the abstract idea. The additional elements of “face recognition technology” and “cloud databases” are recited with such generality that they do not reflect a technical improvement under MPEP 2106.05(a). Even when considering the claims as a whole, nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the claims such that it recites significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, representative claim 11 is patent ineligible under 101 for being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 12, 13, and 15-19 are also given the full two part analysis both individually and in combination with the claims they depend on herein:
Claim 12 recites more of the same abstract idea because it merely defines the environmental parameters involved in the data processing to include carbon dioxide concentration, sound decibel, and PM 2.5 corresponding to each layout point at each detection time point. However, because this is merely claimed in a way that merely labels the meaning of the inputs, without specifically reciting the steps of sensing the carbon dioxide concentration, sound decibels, and PM 2.5 levels, the claims still fall under “certain methods of organizing human activity.” Furthermore, there are no additional elements to consider, therefore, even when considering individually or in combination, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the claims such that it recites significantly more than the abstract idea (an inventive concept).
Claim 13 adds steps related to obtaining a face image, and comparing the age of the resident to a predefined threshold to determine if the person should be marked as elderly. Without oversimplification of the claims, these claims still recite more of the same abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity” because it merely describes a process that falls squarely within “managing personal behavior, interactions, or relationships between people,” by determining whether individual’s age fall within the elderly category by a simple threshold. This is still “managing personal behavior” because it still falls under a set of rules or instructions to an individual to carry out the data collection. Furthermore, there are no additional elements to consider, therefore, even when considering individually or in combination, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the claims such that it recites significantly more than the abstract idea (an inventive concept).
Claims 15-19 add steps that add mathematical concepts to the existing abstract idea process. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) defines the mathematical concepts grouping as “mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations.” Since each step of the dependent claim limitations recite either mathematical relationships, formula or equation or calculations, the claims not only merely based on or involving a mathematical concept, but the claims recites a mathematical concept (and fall within the mathematical concept grouping). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states, “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because "[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula... A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.”
Therefore, since each and every limitation of claims 15-19 either determine a variable or number that is eventually inputted into a mathematical operation, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation.
Therefore, each of the limitations of claims 15-19 are either outright formulas, or are words used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem that serves the same purpose as a formula. Furthermore, the additional element “cloud database” is repeated in claim 17, however, similarly to claim 20 it is still a general link to cloud technology because it merely indicates the cloud database a source or destination for the data, without any improvements to cloud databases themselves. Therefore, even when considering individually or in combination, the claims are not integrated into a practical application. Even when viewed as a whole nothing in the claims meaningfully limits the claims such that it recites significantly more than the abstract idea (an inventive concept).
Subject Matter Distinguished Over the Prior Art
Claims 11-13 and 15-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 11:
Even after amendments made to claim 11 and an updated search, neither AARP, Monti, nor Harper teach or suggest at least the limitations of (but not limited to):
Comparing the proportion of the quantity of the elderly people in each housing estate of the target neighbourhood with a proportion range of a quantity of elderly people suitable for leaving in each unit time stored in a cloud database, and selecting a quantity of the elderly people suitable for leaving in each unit time corresponding to each housing estate of the target neighbourhood;
Multiplying the quantity of the elderly people suitable for leaving in each unit time corresponding to each housing estate with a duration corresponding to the set period to obtain a quantity SYi of the elderly people suitable for leaving corresponding to each housing estate;
Analyzing a suitability coefficient
ε
i
=
(
e
+
1
)
(
S
Y
i
1
+
|
S
L
i
-
S
Y
i
|
)
Of the quantity of the elderly people suitable for leaving corresponding to each housing estate of the target neighbourhood, wherein e is a natural constant;
In a same way, analyzing a suitability coefficient ni of a quantity of elderly people suitable for entering corresponding to each housing estate of the target neighbourhood; and
Comprehensively analyzing the mobility suitability coefficient
u
i
=
…
Of the elderly people corresponding to each housing estate of the target neighbourhood, wherein l1 and l2 are present influence weight factors respectively corresponding to the suitability coefficient of the quantity of the elderly people suitable for entering and the suitability coefficient of the quantity of the elderly people suitable for leaving;
And then analyzing a traffic convenience coefficient JB corresponding to the target neighbourhood accordingly;
Because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest the claim limitations above, whether individually or as an obvious combination, the claims distinguish over the prior art of record and would be allowable if amended to overcome the 101 rejections. The claims require a specific sequence of mathematical steps that are not taught in the prior art of record. Furthermore, dependent claims 12, 13, and 15-19 distinguish over the prior art by virtue of their dependency on claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments over rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, the applicant asserts that the arrangement of cameras, together with a specific face-matching sub-method, and detectors for obtaining environmental parameters, are not merely “a general link to a particular technological environment.” In view of the amendments, the examiner agrees that the claims are no longer just a “general link” to face recognition technology, however, the examiner disagrees that the claims are more than “apply it” or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. Even when considering the camera arrangement, the face-matching steps, and the detectors, the claims are still no more than “apply it” or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on generic computing components or devices in their ordinary capacity, because the camera/detectors are merely devices used to perform their generic function (a camera to capture image date, a detector to detect sound or emissions). Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that the elements work in concert with the recited mathematical pipeline to produce a displayed coefficient and to drive the resulting transformation action. However, the examiner does not find this argument persuasive because it is merely data collection, data analysis, and displaying the results of the analysis to a user, recited at such a high level of generality that it can be interpreted as instructions to manage personal behavior. The applicant’s assertions that the recited hardware addresses a “technical problem” in computer-implemented neighborhoud aging-suitability evaluation, over prior art systems that fail to account for the actual traveling quantity of elderly residents. While the examiner is not responsible for arguments over the merits of the claimed improvement, it is clear that the improvement alleged by the applicant is an improvement in the abstract idea and not an improvement to any computer-specific problem or any technical environment. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) states, “Notably, the court did not distinguish between the types of technology when determining the invention improved technology. However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology.” Therefore, an increase in accuracy of analyzing results of neighbourhood traffic convenience is an improvement to the abstract idea of neighbourhood aging evaluation, not a technical improvement. The applicant’s arguments that the recited improvement is to the operation of computer-implemented evaluation systems that depend on machine-vision-based detection and multi-sensor environmental measures is not persuasive because no improvement to machine vision, or cameras, or sensors have been purported, and merely using these devices in their ordinary capacity to collect data is no more than “apply it.” Examples such as Enfish, LLC and McRo, Inc clearly show an improvement to a particular field of technology, which constrasts the present claims which allege an improvement to “neighbourhood aging evaluation.”
The applicant’s arguments that the recited hardware is not used in its “ordinary capacity,” are not persuasive because the recited hardware (camera) is not supported by the original disclosure, however, for purposes of compact prosecution, even when considering the camera and its arrangement at an exit, it is no more than a device used in its ordinary capacity, because it is merely used to capture the face images. The further limitations of image comparing, and image matching are not relevant to the “ordinary capacity” consideration, because the claims do not require the camera device itself to perform these steps, the camera is only relied upon for capturing. The analysis steps can be performed separately or remotely, as mere instructions to perform the abstract idea on a generic computer. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Regarding the carbon dioxide gas detector, noise detector, and air quality detector, these are merely devices used in their ordinary capacity to capture data. The data processing steps in which the applicant argues “feed the specific recited microenvironment suitability coefficient HJ” are not actions that provide improvements to the detectors, they are merely data analysis steps after the inputs from the detectors have been captured.
The applicant has fully considered the applicant’s citations to MPEP 2106.05(b), MPEP 2106.05(e), Diamond v. Diehr, Powerblock Holdings, however, the applicant has not provided any nexus from these examples to the claims at hand, therefore, it is not clear how these examples are relevant to the present application.
The applicant’s arguments over the new step 6 amendments are not persuasive because while they add a step after “displaying,” it is recited at such a high level of generality that it merely claims the idea of “initiating an aging suitability transformation,” without any specific transformations recited. Thus, the output is still merely a display of information to a user, enabling the user perform any transformation after the fact. Using the analytical output as a “directive to act on the physical neighbourhood” is not an integration into a practical application because it is not clear what transformation is occurring. Merely encouraging or suggesting a transformation is no more than “rules or instructions” to manage personal behavior. Therefore, the applicant’s argument that amended claim 11 is not “merely an improvement to an evaluation; but directly drives an aging suitability transformation of the physical neighbourhood based on that evaluation” is not persuasive because “driving a transformation” is not a technical improvement.
The applicant’s assertion that the “Van Geuns concern has been cured” is affirmed as the claims do positively recite sensor structure, however, this has no effect on the rejection.
In regards to applicant’s arguments over Step 2B, the applicant argues that the combination of elements (a),(b),(d),(e),(f),(g),(h),(i),(j),(k),(1), and (m) is not a “conventional or generic arrangement” citing Diamond v. Diehr that “A new combination of steps may be patentable even though all the constituents of the combinations were well known and in common use before the combination was made.” However, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive because merely reciting a novel combination of elements is not sufficient in overcoming 101, as they are separate analyses. MPEP 2106.05(1) states, “Specifically, lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional elements. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101. The distinction between eligibility (under 35 U.S.C. 101 ) and patentability over the art (under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 ) is further discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).”
Furthermore, the applicant’s arguments that the “well-understood, routine, conventional” consideration is a question of fact that must be supported by an evidentiary showing is not a persuasive argument, because “well understood, routine, conventional” is only one of the consideration made alongside the MPEP 2106.05(f), and MPEP 2106.05(a) considerations. The factual underpinning is only required if the rejection relies upon the “well understood, routine, conventional” assertion. Since the present claims in Step 2B are rejected under MPEP 2106.05(f), and MPEP 2106.05(a) alone, there is no burden on the examiner to provide such evidentiary showing, and therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding the eligibility of dependent claims 12, 13, and 15-19, the applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive because it is not clear how “age-screening sub method” of claim 13, “further reinforces the technical character of the data-classification operation,” particularly when the extent of the operations is merely an age-based threshold comparison (greater than or equal to). At this level, the claims still recite mere data analysis steps and output of the data analysis at a high level of generality. Even when considering claim 18 alongside the amended claim 1 which now includes sensor hardware, the analysis remains unchanged, therefore, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Therefore, claims 11-13 and 15-19 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding allowability over prior art, the claims remain allowable over prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
- Bobda et al. (US 20220054046 A1) discloses a patient monitoring system, in another exemplary aspect, a patient monitoring method is disclosed. The patient monitoring method comprises determining, by a processing unit in communication with a camera, a safe zone around the patient based at least in part on an analysis of one or more initial images received from the camera. The patient monitoring method further comprises determining, by the processing unit, whether the patient has exited the safe zone based at least in part on an analysis of one or more subsequent images received from the camera.
- Zhang et al. (US 20210064851 A1) discloses an age recognition method based on impact of different image resolutions, genders, different poses, and expressions on face age recognition.
- Levin et al. (US 20220383527 A1) discloses a system of automating the assessment and rating of accessibility based on lidar scans and image data.
- Togashi et al. (US 20190012547 A1) discloses determining a congestion state of an area based on live image or recorded images from a camera and predicting the crowd or movement of persons, and from a face detector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICO LAUREN PADUA whose telephone number is (703)756-1978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon to Fri: 8:30 to 5:00pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/NICO L PADUA/ Junior Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/SANGEETA BAHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights