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 .
Response to Amendment
In light of the amendments, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Notice to Applicant
In the amendment dated 05/06/2026, the following has occurred: claims 1, 4, and 8-15 have been amended; claims 2-3, 7, and 16-20 remain unchanged; claims 5-6 have been canceled; and claims 21-22 have been added.
Claims 1-4 and 7-22 are pending.
Effective Filing Date: 12/31/2019
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101 Rejections:
A. Eligility is Self-Evident
Applicant argues that the eligibility is self-evident and claims integration of an abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. The word “causing” broadens the scope of actions such as “installation”. For example, an installation of a camera means that the camera is physically being installed whereas causing installation of a camera could simply be an instruction to install a camera.
Applicant further point to the limitation “causing activation…detecting, based on data….breaching the perimeter….and triggering a notification based on the () breaching” and states that this is not an attempt to tie up any purported abstract idea. The above limitations however use the word “causing” which is then broadens the scope of actions such as “activation”. For example, an activation of a camera means that the camera is turned on while causing an activation of a camera could simply be an instruction to activate a camera. Furthermore, the recitation of the cameras are generic, and based on the current claim construction, part of the abstract idea. Is there an improvement to the detection itself over just collecting data from the camera(s)?
B. Step 2A, Prong One – No Judicial Exception Recited
Applicant argues that there is no human recited so claim 1 does not recite a human. Examiner however respectfully disagrees. The claims do not need to recite a human to be directed towards human activity.
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 and 7-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-4 and 7 are drawn to a system, claims 8-14 are drawn to a method, and claims 15-22 are drawn to a non-transitory media, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-4 and 7-22 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below. As discussed below, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A:
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites a) a system having one or more processors configured to perform a plurality of operations, the operations comprising:
1) monitoring information at b) an electronic health record (EHR) system for a triggering event;
2) in response to detecting the triggering event, assigning virtual guardrail technology to an individual associated with c) an EHR of the EHR system,
2a) wherein the assigning is based on one or both of historical information relating to virtual guardrail technology assignments and d) a first machine learning algorithm trained based on: instances of camera placements associated with (a) EHR systems and (b) guardrail usage for individuals to which guardrail technology has been assigned;
3) based on the assigning, causing installation of one or more cameras at one or more locations in proximity to a location associated with the individual, wherein: the one or more cameras are configured to implement one or more virtual guardrails adjacent the location in accordance with the virtual guardrail technology, and the one or more locations are determined based on the EHR for performing monitoring of a perimeter enclosing a patient and are based on e) a second machine learning algorithm trained based on: guardrail technology associated with (a) the EHR systems and (b) guardrail positioning near individuals to which guardrail technology has been assigned;
4) causing activation of the one or more installed cameras to initiate the assigned virtual guardrail technology;
5) detecting, based on data associated with the monitoring of the perimeter by the one or more installed cameras, the patient breaching the perimeter; and
6) triggering a notification based on the patient breaching the perimeter.
Claim 1 recites, in part, performing the steps of 1) monitor information at an health record (HR) system for a triggering event, 2) in response to detecting the triggering event, assigning virtual guardrail technology (the assignment of it is included in the abstract idea) to an individual associated with an HR of the EHR system, 2a) wherein the assigning is based on one or both of historical information relating to virtual guardrail technology assignments and a first algorithm based on: instances of camera placements associated with (a) EHR systems and (b) guardrail usage for individuals to which guardrail technology has been assigned, 3) based on the assigning, causing installation of one or more cameras at one or more locations in proximity to a location associated with the individual, wherein: the one or more cameras are configured to implement one or more virtual guardrails adjacent the location in accordance with the virtual guardrail technology, and the one or more locations are determined based on the EHR for performing monitoring of a perimeter enclosing a patient and are based on a second algorithm based on: guardrail technology associated with (a) the EHR systems and (b) guardrail positioning near individuals to which guardrail technology has been assigned, 4) causing activation of the one or more installed cameras to initiate the assigned virtual guardrail technology, 5) detecting, based on data associated with the monitoring of the perimeter by the one or more installed cameras, the patient breaching the perimeter, and 6) triggering a notification based on the patient breaching the perimeter. These steps correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, more particularly, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). For example, a person can determine to assign a monitoring technology and then implement the physical components of that system for the purposes of monitoring that patient and notifying when that patient experiences a breach. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations and are also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 2-4, 7, 9-14, and 16-22 include all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 2-4, 7, 9-14, and 16-20 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. Claims 21 and 22 add additional steps to the claims, but these additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea (claim 21 also adds the additional element of “electronically receiving” data). Thus, depending claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (Step 2A (Prong One): YES).
Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of – using a) a system having one or more processors, b) an electronic health record (EHR) system, c) an EHR, d) a first machine learning algorithm trained based on data, e) a second machine learning algorithm trained based on data, and f) electronically receiving an update (from claim 21) to perform the claimed steps.
The a) system having one or more processors, b) electronic health record (EHR) system, c) EHR, d) first machine learning algorithm trained based on data, e) second machine learning algorithm trained based on data, and f) electronically receiving an update in these steps are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic components performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (see: Applicant’s specification, paragraphs [0031] and [0040] where there is generic computing components for these elements, see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. 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 improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, 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 (Step 2A (Prong Two): NO).
Step 2B:
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 of using a) a system having one or more processors, b) an electronic health record (EHR) system, c) an EHR, d) a first machine learning algorithm trained based on data, e) a second machine learning algorithm trained based on data, and f) electronically receiving an update to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components that do not offer “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of any computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. It should be noted that the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the Specification recites mere generic computer components, as discussed above that are being used to apply certain method steps of organizing human activity. Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(f) recites that the following limitations are not significantly more:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
The current invention sets up and activates a monitoring technology utilizing a) a system having one or more processors, b) an electronic health record (EHR) system, c) an EHR, d) a first machine learning algorithm trained based on data, e) a second machine learning algorithm trained based on data, and f) electronically receiving an update, thus these computing components are adding the words “apply it” with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claims 1-4 and 7-22 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 Steven G.S. Sanghera whose telephone number is (571)272-6873. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 (alternating Fri).
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
/STEVEN G.S. SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights