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 final rejection in response to remarks/amendments filed on 03/18/2026. Claims 11-13 and 15-19 have been amended. Claims 14 and 20 have been canceled without prejudice or disclaimer. 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.
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, 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;
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, 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; and
S6, processing the target neighbourhood: displaying the evaluation coefficient of aging residential suitability corresponding to the target neighbourhood.
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.
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
The additional element of using face recognition technology to detect a quantity of individuals or cloud databases to store is merely a general link to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h) and 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 are generally linked to “face recognition technology” and “cloud databases” in a way that does not meaningfully limit the claim because it does not recite how face recognition technology is to be used to collect the data, or how cloud databases are specifically meaningfully limited. 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
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, the additional elements of “face recognition technology” and “cloud databases” are recited with such generality that they are no more than a general link to particular technological environment. 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 counting the quantity of face images to determine the amount of people entering each housing estate. 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 how the quantity of individuals is counted in a generic manner (i.e. counting faces of people by each exit of a property). 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:
The reasons for indicating subject matter distinguished over prior art for claim 14 are as follows: Claim 14 recites a specific sequence of mathematical calculations for analyzing mobility suitability that are not taught or suggested in the prior art of record. 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 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner acknowledges that claim 20 has been cancelled and the rejections to claim 20 are therefore moot.
Regarding eligibility over 101, the applicant’s assertions regarding “using face recognition technology with cameras at housing estate exits to detect and count elderly people, which is a concrete technological solution for gathering real-world data” is not persuasive because the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 13 does not positively recite structural components, and even assuming arguendo that such components were positively recited, it would still fall under “apply it.” Since claim 13 only recites data collection steps, it does not recite an additional element and is still part of the abstract idea. Even though the specification at [0031] describes matching face images to elderly people, and the claim collects information at physical exit locations, neither of which recite a “technological implementation” because the hardware is not explicitly written into the claims. Furthermore, even assuming arguendo that the hardware or structure is recited into the claims, merely using computers or devices in their ordinary capacity to perform the abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Similarly, the applicant’s arguments over claim 12 regarding the “environmental parameters” are not persuasive because the alleged sensors are not positively recited in the claims (carbon dioxide gas detector, noise detector, and air quality detector.) In response to applicant's argument, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., carbon dioxide gas detector, noise detector, and air quality detector) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, even if such elements were recited within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, such sensors would merely be use of devices in their ordinary capacity to collect data.
Furthermore, the applicant’s argument in page 13 regarding claim 11 reciting a “particular technological improvement in neighborhood assessment systems, not merely generic mathematical concepts,” is not persuasive because “neighborhood assessment systems” does not count as a technological area, or a technical solution to a problem in computers or software arts. Furthermore, even if there was an improvement to neighborhood assessment systems, this would be an improvement to the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(a) 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.”
Furthermore, even when considering the alleged combination of face recognition technology, environmental sensor, and mathematical algorithms, the applicant’s assertions that the claims recite a “particular machine or transformation” is not persuasive because there is no specific hardware structure recited, and even assuming arguendo, even the combination of elements does not recite an improvement to a particular technology or any other meaningful limitation. The applicant’s arguments that the specification [0042], and [0055] ensures accuracy of analysis results, or neighborhood aging evaluations are not persuasive because these alleged improvements would be improvements to the abstract idea(neighborhood assessment).
Furthermore, the applicant’s arguments regarding generic data processing are not persuasive because the elements have been addressed as “mathematical concepts,” in the rejection statement above. For example, obtaining..., comparing proportions..., multiplying...and applying specific mathematical formulas all fall within data collection or mathematical concepts. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea without integration into a practical application or significantly more, because “applying specific mathematical formulas to calculate suitability coefficients” is still a recitation of mathematical concepts. The applicant’s arguments regarding claim 20 are moot because the claim is cancelled. Furthermore, the arguments for amended claim 11 and the dependent claims 12-19 are not persuasive because claim 11 has not overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Furthermore, rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn in view of the amendments to claims that now include subject matter from previously recited claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
-Nyunt et al. (NPL, 2015, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, Objective and subjective measures of neighborhood environment(NE)) discloses research regarding a modified version of the Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale and Geographical Information System (GIS) measures.
-Frank et al. (US 20200075168 A1) discloses metrics for location and population based health assessment in which a user selects a location, specifies optimization preferences, determines demographic environment parameters that may improve the outcome, and calculates the predicted health outcomes by simulating the predictive equations.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/JESSICA LEMIEUX/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights