DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract
idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are within the four statutory categories. However, as will be shown below, claims 1-20
are nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are representative of the inventive concept and recite:
Claim 1
A computing device comprising:
an input device; a memory; and processing circuitry configured to execute logic for a monitoring application stored in the memory, the processing circuitry further configured to:
determine that a monitoring application, previously executed by the processing circuitry, is inoperative;
receive, from an input device of the computing device, input data indicative of a current location of a patient;
determine whether the current location of the patient corresponds to an authenticated area of the patient;
and in response to the determination that the current location corresponds to the authenticated area and to the determination that the monitoring application is inoperative, restart the monitoring application.
*Claims 8 and 14 recite similar limitations as claim 1, but for a method and non-transitory computer-readable medium, respectively.
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because the
highlighted components can practically be performed by the human mind (in this case, the process of
determining) or using pen and paper. Other than reciting generic computer components/functions such as “computing device”, “input device”, and “memory”, “processing circuitry”, and “monitoring application”, nothing in the claims precludes the highlighted portions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in claim 1, but for the device language, the claim encompasses the user attaining information to determine a patient’s presence in an authenticated area. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components/functions, then it falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. Additionally, the recitation of generic computer components and functions such as restarting also covers behavioral or interactions between people (i.e. the computer), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), hence the claim falls under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 recite additional subject matter which further narrows or
defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim 2, reciting functions of the input device).
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims
recite the following additional limitations:
Claim 1 recites: “computing device”, “input device”, “memory”, “processing circuitry configured to execute logic for a monitoring application stored in the memory”, and “receive, from an input device of the computing device, input data indicative of a current location of a patient”
In particular, the additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other
than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations
are recited as being performed by a “computing device”, “input device”, “memory”, “processing circuitry configured to execute logic for a monitoring application stored in the memory”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the
recitation of “receive, from an input device of the computing device, input data indicative of a current location of a patient”.
Dependent claim 2 recites “input device”, “communication circuitry communicatively coupled to a device of a computing service”, “receiving data”
Dependent claim 3 recites “application”
Dependent claim 4 recites “computing device”
Dependent claim 6 recites “receiving”
Dependent claim 7 recites “application”, “computing device”, “submitting”, “computing system”, “network”, “non-volatile memory”, “volatile memory”
Dependent claim 9 recites “signal”, “GPS Receiver”, “network”, “beacon device”, “medical device”
Dependent claim 11 recites “receiving input data”, “device”, “computing service”
Dependent claim 12 recites “receiving”, “output device”, “computing service”, “device”
Dependent claim 13 recites “application”, “computing device”, “network”, “processing circuitry”, “non-volatile memory”, “volatile memory”
Dependent claim 16 recites “application”
Dependent claim 17 recites “application”, “computing device”
Dependent claim 18 recites “application”
Dependent claim 19 recites “application”, “network”
Dependent claim 20 recites “application”, “processing circuitry”
In particular, the additional elements do no integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other
than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations
are recited as being performed by “input device”, “communication circuitry communicatively coupled to a device of a computing service”, “application”, “computing device”, “computing system”, “network”, “non-volatile memory”, “volatile memory”, “network”, “beacon device”, “medical device”, “device”, “computing service”, and “output device”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the
recitation of “receiving data”, “signal”, “GPS Receiver”, and “submitting”.
Dependent claims 5, 9-10, and 15 do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 14 and dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 11-13, and 16-20, hence do not
integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a particular application. Looking at the limitations as an
ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken
individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a
computer or any other technology. Their collective function merely provides conventional computer
implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application.
Step 2B
Claims 1, 8, and 14 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements: A device in claim 1; amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields as demonstrated by the recitation of:
Receiving, which refers to moving digital information from a source device or system to a destination across a network (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823
F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748(Fed. Cir. 2016)) in a manner that would be well-
understood, routine, and conventional.
Input, which refers to entering data into a computer or other system ((Para 0080, Lade(US 20220379787 A1) discloses: “Additionally, systems disclosed herein can include one or more interfaces allowing user interaction that includes one or more conventional inputs, such as haptic inputs including a dial, button, touch screen, etc.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Output (Para 0205, Pal(US 20190163842 A1) discloses: “The ERP processes 196-1 and 196-2 can communicate with the search head 190 via conventional input/output routines (e.g., standard in/standard out, etc.). In this way, the ERP process receives the search request from a client device such that the search request may be efficiently executed at the corresponding external virtual index.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Signal, which refers to received electrical impulse or radio wave (Para 0025, Yu(US 20190272433 A1) discloses: “Antennas can serve to connect the in-vehicle control system 150 and the image processing module 200 with the data network 120 via cellular, satellite, radio, or other conventional signal reception mechanisms.”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Submitting (Sending), which refers to moving digital information from a source device or system to a destination across a network (TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748(Fed. Cir. 2016)) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
GPS Receiver, which is a device that picks up signals from satellites (Para 79, Ranabahu(US 10747390 B1) discloses: “Example device elements include, but are not limited to applications, processes, routines, sensors (e.g., GPS receiver, microphone, camera, touchscreen or other input device, and the like).”) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Dependent claims 5, 9-10, and 15 do not include any additional elements beyond those already
addressed above for independent claims 1, 8, and 14 and dependent claims 2-4, 6-7, 9, 11-13, and 16-20. Therefore, they are not deemed to be significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated
above, the limitations of the aforementioned dependent claims amount to no more than generally
linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or do not recite
and additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 14 hence do not amount
to “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount
to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as
an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken
individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a
computer or improves any other technology, and their collective function merely provide conventional
computer implementation.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the subject matter free of prior art:
Claims 1, 8, and 14 distinguish over the prior art for the following reasons.
Claim 1 (in part):
“A computing device comprising: an input device; a memory configured to execute logic for a monitoring application stored in the memory, the processing circuitry further configured to: determine that a monitoring application, previously executed by the processing circuitry, is inoperative; receive, from an input device of the computing device, input data indicative of a current location of a patient…”
The underlined/italicized limitations indicate the reason for subject matter free of prior art.
The closest available prior art of record as follows:
Waltermann(US20160267265A1) discloses a device that provides authentication based on body movement, but does not fairly disclose or suggest the aforementioned configuration for the claimed invention.
Schoenfelder(US20210142601A1) discloses a system to control devices via a mobile device platform in a smart building system, but does not fairly disclose or suggest the aforementioned configuration for the claimed invention.
Volpe(US20170258401A1) discloses a proximity based system and methods, but does not fairly disclose or suggest the aforementioned configuration for the claimed invention.
Based on the evidence presented above, none of the closest available prior art of record fairly
discloses or suggests the claimed invention. For this reason, claims 1, 8, and 14 would be found to be
subject matter free of prior art as would claims 2-7, 9-13, and 15-20 via dependency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Waltermann(US20160267265A1) discloses a device that provides authentication based on body movement.
Schoenfelder(US20210142601A1) discloses a system to control devices via a mobile device platform in a smart building system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERYL GOPAL PATEL whose telephone number is (703)756-1990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30am to 2:30pm PST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/S.G.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685