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 the Claims
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, and 123 have been amended. Claims 2 and 3 have been canceled. Claims 1, 4-13 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 12/17/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(d) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, applicant argues that the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, specifically improving computers or technology by the transportation route prioritizing reducing a burden on the patient being transported and reduction of a required time for transport. Examiner disagrees. Prioritizing reducing a burden on the patient being transported and reduction of a required time for transport, while corresponding to the judicial exception grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity, are not improvements to computers or technology. At best, the alleged improvement is an improvement in the judicial exception itself. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite a tangible result such as presenting at least one route of the plurality of routes to a terminal device used by emergency personnel and thus represents an improvement in computers or technology. First, the claims do not recite presenting routes to a terminal device. Second, even if the claims did recite such limitation, the limitation would not improve computers or technology. Presenting routes to a terminal device for emergency personnel to view and/or follow does not improve the functioning or operation of computers or technology. This is merely transmitting data which has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, or conventional activity or functions. (see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II)).
Applicant finally argues that their claims are similar to that of McRO, Inc. dba Planet Blue v. Bandai Namco Games American Inc., 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("McRO"). Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s claims are no way similar to that of McRO. McRO is directed to an improvement “providing an integrated method embodied in computer software…for the rapid, efficient lip synchronization and manipulation of character facial expressions[.]” The invention utilizes “a plurality of morph weight set transition rules” for “determining when to set keyframes[,] and setting those keyframes…taking into consideration the differences in mouth positions for similar phonemes based on context.” For example, where an animator previously would have had to subjectively identify a problem with an animated face saying “hello” after silence, and insert a keyframe for the appropriate time in which the model would start to open its mouth, the invention uses rules to automatically set that appropriate keyframe." The McRO specifications describe that in the relevant art, applying the appropriate data points for basic sound phonemes, e.g. ‘aah,’ ‘ee,’ or ‘oo,’ was usually done using a “keyframe” approach. McRO, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 16703 at *7. In a keyframe approach, an animator sets the morph weights at certain important times, between which a computer program “interpolates” (filling in the data points between those morph weights). The patents state that this method requires the animator to manually set a tediously high number of keyframes, which is time consuming, and can be inaccurate. Applicant’s claims are in no way analogous to McRo. The basis for the court’s decision was that the claims improved a computer-related technology by enabling the computer to perform functions that previously could not be performed by a computer and that required the subjective judgement of a human. The court emphasized both the specific claiming of the rules and the specification’s explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of these specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated. This enabling of functionality that could not previously be performed by a computer was what amounted to the improvement in computer-related technology, not the simple recitation of a set of particular rules. Applicant’s claims allegedly reciting rules for determining transportation route priority based on the relationship between urgency level and rest level does not enable the computer to perform functions that previously could not be performed by a computer.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 13, filed 12/17/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of has been withdrawn.
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 and 4-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 4-11 recite an apparatus (i.e. machine), claim 12 recites a method (i.e. process), and claim 13 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e. machine or article of manufacture). Therefore claims 1 and 4-13 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1, 12, and 13 recite the limitations of: acquire medical condition information of a patient; evaluate an urgency level and a rest level of a medical condition based on the medical condition information of the patient, the urgency level indicating how urgent a medical condition of the patient is, and the rest level indicating how much the medical condition of the patient necessitates rest; search for a plurality of transport routes along which the patient is transported to a transport destination; evaluate a burden on a patient and a required time for each of the plurality of transport routes; determine a priority for each of the plurality of transport routes based on a comparison result between the urgency level and the rest level, the burden, and the required time; and present at least one of the plurality of transport routes in accordance with the priority, set a priority of a transport route having a shorter required time than other transport routes to be higher in a case where the urgency level is higher than the rest level; and set a priority of a transport route having a lower burden than other transport routes to be higher in a case where the urgency level is lower than the rest level. The invention and claim limitations are drawn towards providing a transportation route for the transport of a patient, and the claims recite limitations that directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal behavior, interactions; following rules or instructions) as evidenced by limitations detailing acquiring the medical condition or a patient/person and determining a priority of the patient based on a burden and time to route the patient.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: at least one processor (claim 1), at least one memory (claim 1), a computer (claims 12 and 13), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 13). The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, these 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites the limitation that the topographic information of the road is information based on acceleration information of [a vehicle] and positional information of the vehicle acquired from [the vehicle]. The limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element of a vehicle. The vehicle amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 9 recites the limitation that the congestion information of the road is information based on at least one of imaging information acquired from an [imaging apparatus] installed on a road and information regarding a [traffic light] installed on the road. The limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional elements of an imaging apparatus and traffic light. The additional elements amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, 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. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 11 recites the limitation of perform[ing] machine learning using past medical condition information of a patient and a transport history of the patient, and determine a priority for each of the plurality of transport routes based on the medical condition information of the patient and a model trained by the machine learning. The limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also a model trained by machine learning, which said model is interpreted as an algorithm. The model trained by machine learning further amounts to mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations; mathematical calculations). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 4, 5, 7, 8, and 10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 4-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes Gounares (2009/0198733) and Chang (2022/0328172). Gounares discloses a system wherein a match component can evaluate the portion of data to select a medical facility in which to transport a patient involved in the emergency medical incident, wherein the medical facility can be ascertained based on a distance between the location of the emergency medical incident and a location for the selected medical facility and traffic related to a route there between. Chang discloses an optimal transfer hospital determining method and includes determining candidate hospitals; acquiring status information about an emergency patient; determining the severity of the patient on the basis of the acquired status information; calculating emergency event possibility information on the basis of the acquired status information; acquiring transport resources availability information about the determined candidate hospitals; calculating the suitability of each candidate hospital on the basis of the determined severity of the patient, the acquired emergency event possibility information, and the transport resource availability information; and determining the optimal transfer hospital on the basis of the calculated suitability of each candidate hospital. Neither reference, individually nor in combination, discloses the amended limitation(s) of: evaluate an urgency level and a rest level of a medical condition based on the medical condition information of the patient, the urgency level indicating how urgent a medical condition of the patient is, and the rest level indicating how much the medical condition of the patient necessitates rest; wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: set a priority of a transport route having a shorter required time than other transport routes to be higher in a case where the urgency level is higher than the rest level; and set a priority of a transport route having a lower burden than other transport routes to be higher in a case where the urgency level is lower than the rest level. The claims overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes the publication “Alternatives to direct emergency department conveyance of ambulance patients: a scoping review of the evidence” (Blodgett, et. al.; 2021) which discusses alternate routes of care for intermediate, non-urgent patients, alternate routes of care after triage by the on-scene paramedic, and examination alternate routes of care for the nonurgent “intermediate” patient, as triaged on scene. The reference does not explicitly disclose the amended limitation(s) of: evaluate an urgency level and a rest level of a medical condition based on the medical condition information of the patient, the urgency level indicating how urgent a medical condition of the patient is, and the rest level indicating how much the medical condition of the patient necessitates rest; wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: set a priority of a transport route having a shorter required time than other transport routes to be higher in a case where the urgency level is higher than the rest level; and set a priority of a transport route having a lower burden than other transport routes to be higher in a case where the urgency level is lower than the rest level. The claims overcome the prior art.
Conclusion
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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628