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 .
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-7 are drawn to a system, claims 8-14 are drawn to a method, and claims 15-20 are drawn to a non-transitory media, each of which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 1-20 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 facilitate 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: camera placements in individual locations associated with (a) EHR systems and (b) guardrail technology camera placements near 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, the one or more cameras configured to implement one or more virtual guardrails adjacent the location in accordance with the virtual guardrail technology, and the one or more locations determined based on the EHR and on e) a second machine learning algorithm; and
4) --causing activation of the one or more installed cameras to initiate the assigned virtual guardrail technology.
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: camera placements in individual locations associated with (a) EHR systems and (b) guardrail technology camera placements near 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, the one or more cameras configured to implement one or more virtual guardrails adjacent the location in accordance with the virtual guardrail technology, and the one or more locations determined based on the EHR and on a second algorithm, and 4) causing activation of the one or more installed cameras to initiate the assigned virtual guardrail technology. 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. Independent claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations and are also directed to an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Depending claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 include all of the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 15, and therefore likewise incorporate the above described abstract idea. Depending claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 further specify elements from the claims from which they depend on without adding any additional steps. These additional limitations only further serve to limit the abstract idea. 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, and e) a second machine learning algorithm 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, and e) second machine learning algorithm 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, and e) a second machine learning algorithm 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, and e) a second machine learning algorithm, 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 1-20 are therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Relevant References
Examiner would like to cite U.S. Patent No. 9,368,014 to Bittman, U.S. Patent No. 10,121,070 to Derenne, U.S. 2018/0227547 to Derenne, U.S. 2015/0221202 to Russell, and U.S. 2017/0147770 to Xu as relevant references.
Art Rejections
No art rejection was given due to the claims including limitations which, when considered with the entirety of the claims, are distinct from any combinations of prior art references. These limitations involve the training of a model using the placements of the cameras and then assigning and installing those cameras in those locations.
Double Patenting Rejections
No double patenting rejections are given because of the elements stated above in the art rejections section.
Conclusion
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