DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Response to the Election/Restriction Requirement received on 14 July 2026. Claims 2, 3 and 11 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-15 are pending in this application. Claims 1, 4-10, and 12-15 have been examined on their merits.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III (claims 1, 4-10, and 12-15), in the reply filed on 14 July 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6-8, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes a spacing issue between “subject,” and “to be” in line 7.
Claim 1 includes the punctuation issue of “an environment improvement apparatus, or the at least one external apparatus …” in lines 12-13. Suggested claim language: “an environment improvement apparatus or the at least one external apparatus …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 6 includes an extra space between “monitoring apparatus” and “of claim 1” in line 1.
Claim 6 includes the punctuation issue of “… the Wi-Fi channel state information, and based on a breathing state of the selected care subject …” in lines 6-7. Suggested claim language: “… the Wi-Fi channel state information and based on a breathing state of the selected care subject …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 7 includes the punctuation issue of “… the at least one external apparatus is the environment improvement apparatus, or the at least one external apparatus is among a care-related apparatus for the selected care subject …” in lines 4-6. Suggested claim language: “… the at least one external apparatus is the environment improvement apparatus or the at least one external apparatus is among a care-related apparatus for the selected care subject …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 8 includes an extra space between “apparatus” and “of claim” in line 1.
Claim 10 includes an extra space between “a care subject and “to be” in line 3.
Claim 10 includes the punctuation issue of “an environment improvement apparatus, or the at least one external apparatus …” in line 11. Suggested claim language: “an environment improvement apparatus or the at least one external apparatus …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites:
determine the at least one external apparatus is an environment improvement apparatus, or the at least one external apparatus is among the environment improvement apparatus enabled to control an environment around the selected care subject, (lines 13-15)
Claim 10 recites:
determine at least one external apparatus is an environment improvement apparatus, or the at least one external apparatus is among the environment improvement apparatus enabled to control an environment around the selected care subject, (lines 10-12)
The claims and specification are not clear as what is being determined since the difference between “at least one external apparatus is an environment improvement apparatus” and “the at least one external apparatus is among the environment improvement apparatus enabled to control an environment around the selected care subject” is unclear (i.e. How do the “at least one external apparatus is an environment improvement apparatus” and “at least one external apparatus is among the environment improvement apparatus enabled to control an environment around the selected care subject” differ in scope?); hence, claim 1 and 10 are rendered indefinite.
Claims 4-9, dependent from claim 1, stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 10, dependent from claims 12-15, stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the same rationale as set forth in claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-7, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
At step 1, the claim recites a monitoring apparatus, therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “based on the obtained sensed data, determine the at least one external apparatus is an environment improvement apparatus, or the at least one external apparatus is among the environment improvement apparatus enabled to control an environment around the selected care subject”.
The limitation of “based on the obtained sensed data, determine the at least one external apparatus is an environment improvement apparatus, or the at least one external apparatus is among the environment improvement apparatus enabled to control an environment around the selected care subject”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain additional information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a communicator configured to communicate with at least one external apparatus”; “a memory to store one or more instructions”; “an input receiver configured to receive an input setting an operation mode; “at least one sensor”; and “at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions to, through the input receiver, select a care subject to be monitored and receive an input to execute a care mode for the selected care subject, in response to the received input, obtain, through the at least one sensor, sensed data including at least one of data regarding a movement of the selected care subject, data regarding temperature and humidity around the selected care subject, or data regarding air quality around the selected care subject, transmit, through the communicator, to the environment improvement apparatus, an operation control signal related to improving the environment around the selected care subject”.
The limitations of “a communicator”, “a memory”, “an input receiver, and “at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of “at least one sensor” and “in response to the received input, obtain, through the at least one sensor, sensed data including at least one of data regarding a movement of the selected care subject, data regarding temperature and humidity around the selected care subject, or data regarding air quality around the selected care subject” represent a mere means and operation for data gathering. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “store one or more instructions”, “receive an input setting an operation mode”, and “select a care subject to be monitored and receive an input to execute a care mode for the selected care subject” represent mere data gathering. The limitations of “store”, “receive”, and “select” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations “at least one external apparatus” and “the at least one external apparatus is an environment improvement apparatus, or the at least one external apparatus is among the environment improvement apparatus” are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limit the abstract ideas to a field of use. (MPEP 2106.07(a)): “similar to how limiting the computer implemented abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (limiting use of mathematical formula to use in particular industries did not amount to an inventive concept).”). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “… communicate with at least one external apparatus” and “transmit, … , an operation control signal related to improving the environment around the selected care subject” represents the mere output of data. The limitations of “communicate” and “transmit” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a communicator”, “a memory”, “an input receiver, and “at least one processor configured to execute the one or more instructions” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitations of “at least one sensor” and “in response to the received input, obtain, through the at least one sensor, sensed data including at least one of data regarding a movement of the selected care subject, data regarding temperature and humidity around the selected care subject, or data regarding air quality around the selected care subject”, as discussed above, represent a mere means and operation for gathering data and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “store one or more instructions”, “receive an input setting an operation mode”, and “select a care subject to be monitored and receive an input to execute a care mode for the selected care subject”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “at least one external apparatus” and “the at least one external apparatus is an environment improvement apparatus, or the at least one external apparatus is among the environment improvement apparatus” merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “… communicate with at least one external apparatus” and “transmit, … , an operation control signal related to improving the environment around the selected care subject”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… based on data regarding the vibration detected by the vibration sensor, determine a state of the selected care subject …” and “based on the state of the selected care subject, upon determining the selected care subject needs to be taken care of …”.
The limitation of “… based on data regarding the vibration detected by the vibration sensor, determine a state of the selected care subject …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain addition information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “based on the state of the selected care subject, upon determining the selected care subject needs to be taken care of …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain addition information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a vibration sensor configured to detect a vibration around the selected care subject”, “… an outputter configured to output a notification”, and “the at least one processor is further configured to … output, through the outputter, a notification indicating that the selected care subject needs to be taken care of”.
The limitations of “an outputter” and “the at least one processor” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “a vibration sensor configured to detect a vibration around the selected care subject” represents a mere means and operation for data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “… output a notification” and “output, … , a notification indicating that the selected care subject needs to be taken care of” represent the mere output of data. The limitations of “output” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “an outputter” and “the at least one processor” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “a vibration sensor configured to detect a vibration around the selected care subject”, as discussed above, represents a mere means and operation for gathering data and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “… output a notification” and “output, … , a notification indicating that the selected care subject needs to be taken care of”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “presenting offers and gathering”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… based on the personal information regarding the selected care subject and at least one of the data regarding the movement of the selected care subject, the data regarding the temperature and humidity around the selected care subject, or the data regarding the air quality around the selected care subject, determine whether the selected care subject needs to be taken care of”.
The limitation of “… based on the personal information regarding the selected care subject and at least one of the data regarding the movement of the selected care subject, the data regarding the temperature and humidity around the selected care subject, or the data regarding the air quality around the selected care subject, determine whether the selected care subject needs to be taken care of”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain additional information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… the at least one processor is further configured to: obtain personal information regarding the selected care subject …. and transmit, through the communicator, to the at least one external apparatus, data indicating a notification”.
The limitation “the at least one external apparatus” is generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract ideas to a field of use. (MPEP 2106.07(a)): “similar to how limiting the computer implemented abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (limiting use of mathematical formula to use in particular industries did not amount to an inventive concept).”). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “the at least one processor” and “the communicator” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… obtain personal information regarding the selected care subject” represent mere data gathering. The limitation of “obtain” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… transmit, … , data indicating a notification” represents the mere output of data. The limitation of and “transmit” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the at least one processor” and “the communicator” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “the at least one external apparatus” merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “… obtain personal information regarding the selected care subject”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitation of “… transmit, … , data indicating a notification”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
Claim 6:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… analyze the Wi-Fi channel state information, and based on a breathing state of the selected care subject being predicted to be at least one of an abnormal state or a state in which the selected care subject has fallen, determine that the selected care subject needs to be taken care of”.
The limitation of “… analyze the Wi-Fi channel state information, and based on a breathing state of the selected care subject being predicted to be at least one of an abnormal state or a state in which the selected care subject has fallen, determine that the selected care subject needs to be taken care of”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “analyze”, “predicted”, and “determine” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain additional information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “an outputter configured to output a notification” and “wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: obtain, through the communicator, wireless-fidelity (Wi-Fi) channel state information, …, and output, through the outputter, a notification indicating that the selected care subject needs to be taken care of”.
The limitations of “an outputter”, “the at least one processor”, and “the communicator” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… obtain, …, wireless-fidelity (Wi-Fi) channel state information” represent mere data gathering. The limitation of “obtain” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “… output a notification” and “output, … , a notification indicating that the selected care subject needs to be taken care of” represent the mere output of data. The limitations of “output” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “an outputter”, “the at least one processor”, and “the communicator” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… obtain, …, wireless-fidelity (Wi-Fi) channel state information”, as discussed above, represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “… output a notification” and “output, … , a notification indicating that the selected care subject needs to be taken care of”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “presenting offers and gathering”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7:
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… upon determining the selected care subject needs to be taken care of, based on the state of the selected care subject, determine the at least one external apparatus is the environment improvement apparatus, or the at least one external apparatus is among a care-related apparatus for the selected care subject”.
The limitation of “… upon determining the selected care subject needs to be taken care of, based on the state of the selected care subject, determine the at least one external apparatus is the environment improvement apparatus, or the at least one external apparatus is among a care-related apparatus for the selected care subject”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” and “determine” in the context of the claim encompasses assessing data to ascertain additional information. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… the at least one external apparatus is the environment improvement apparatus, or the at least one external apparatus is among a care-related apparatus for the selected care subject” and “… wherein the at least one processor is further configured to … transmit, through the communicator, to the care-related apparatus for the selected care subject, an operation control signal related to taking care of the selected care subject”.
The limitations of “the at least one processor” and “the communicator” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations “… the at least one external apparatus is the environment improvement apparatus” and “… the at least one external apparatus is among a care-related apparatus for the selected care subject” are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limit the abstract ideas to a field of use. (MPEP 2106.07(a)): “similar to how limiting the computer implemented abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient. See e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (limiting use of mathematical formula to use in particular industries did not amount to an inventive concept).”). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “… transmit, … , an operation control signal related to taking care of the selected care subject” represents the mere output of data. The limitation of “transmit” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the at least one processor” and “the communicator” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitations of “… the at least one external apparatus is the environment improvement apparatus” and “… the at least one external apparatus is among a care-related apparatus for the selected care subject” merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitation of “… transmit, … , an operation control signal related to taking care of the selected care subject”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a distance sensor configured to measure distance data between the selected care subject and the monitoring apparatus”; and “an outputter configured to output a notification, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to, based on the distance data measured by the distance sensor being greater than preset reference data, output a distance adjustment notification through the outputter”.
The limitations of “an outputter” and “the at least one processer” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of “a distance sensor configured to measure distance data between the selected care subject and the monitoring apparatus” represent a mere means and operation for data gathering. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “… output a notification” and “… based on the distance data measured by the distance sensor being greater than preset reference data, output a distance adjustment notification …” represent the mere output of data. The limitations of “output” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “an outputter” and “the at least one processer” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “a distance sensor configured to measure distance data between the selected care subject and the monitoring apparatus”, as discussed above, represents a mere means and operation for gathering data and is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “… output a notification” and “… based on the distance data measured by the distance sensor being greater than preset reference data, output a distance adjustment notification …”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the courts have found limitations directed to data transmission, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-known, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “presenting offers and gathering”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10:
Claim 10 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 4 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 4.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 5 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 5.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 9 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to configuration and control systems/methods.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0335510 A1 discloses an infant care system creates a microenvironment about an infant patient.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0030605 A1 discloses a method and apparatus to operate a wireless room temperature universal control system.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0320915 A1 discloses an information processing device to facilitate an electronic apparatus that affects an environmental condition and an electronic apparatus that measures an environmental condition to collaborate with each other via a network.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0165144 A1 discloses an elderly care and security system comprises one or more networked lighting luminaire installed in a room.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0248598 A1 discloses a method and system for patient monitoring, the system comprising a surveillance camera configured to generate a plurality of frames showing an area in which a patient in a bed is being monitored.
U.S. Patent No. 12,185,442 B2 discloses a method for illuminating an environment using an angularly varying light emitting device includes determining a target illuminance based on a specification, identifying angular bins corresponding to illuminating one or more spatial zones or areas, and adjusting a first light flux output of at least one light source into angular bins based at least in part on the target illuminance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights