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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
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 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites:
A system for providing geolocated, early health alerts comprising:
a processor;
a volatile memory coupled to the processor;
a second memory coupled to the processor storing:
granular dynamic geolocation map dataset of exposures;
health profiles;
code comprising computer-executable instructions executable by the processor for:
receiving geolocation data for an individual, the geolocation data comprising a geolocation and a future time;
accessing, from the second memory, a health profile for the individual, the health profile comprising personal health and data attributes for the individual;
loading into the volatile memory, current exposure variables for a defined time interval, the current exposure variables representing conditions that are potentially detrimental to the health of the individual;
analyzing by an artificial intelligence engine the current exposure variables to identify a pattern in the current exposure variables and use the pattern in the current exposure variables to forecast future exposure variables at the future time;
determining based on the personal health and data attributes and the forecasted future exposure variables that the individual is at risk of a health event; and
generating an alert to the individual of the health event, the alert associated with the geolocation and future time.
The limitations of “receiving geolocation data…”, “accessing, from the second memory, a health profile…”, “loading into the volatile memory, current exposure variables…”, “analyzing by the artificial intelligence engine the current exposure variables…”, “determining…that the person is at risk…”, and “generating an alert…” is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional limitations of a processor, a volatile memory coupled to the processor, and a second memory coupled to the processor. The processor, volatile and second memory are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does 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 element of using a processor and memory amounts 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the additional limitations of
wherein the code further comprises instructions executable for: scanning the future forecasted exposure variables for a single variable or a coupled variable that meets a health risk threshold; and
based on the single variable or coupled variable meeting the health risk threshold, increasing a risk score for the individual for the geolocation and the future time.
The above limitations involve a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional limitations. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites the additional limitations of
wherein the code further comprises instructions executable for:
identifying the single variable or the coupled variable and the health risk threshold based on the health profile of the individual.
The above limitations involve a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional limitations. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the additional limitations of
wherein the current exposure variables comprise at least one of an environmental exposure variable, a disease exposure variable, or a toxin exposure variable.
The above limitations involve a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional limitations. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the additional limitations of
wherein the code further comprises instructions executable for overlying the alert on a digital map.
The above limitations involve a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional limitations. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites the additional limitations of
wherein the pattern comprises identified variables that trend together, an order in which the identified variables move, a velocity of movement of each respective identified variable in relation to the other identified variables.
The above limitations involve a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional limitations. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the additional limitations of
wherein the code further comprises instructions executable for building the granular dynamic geolocation map dataset of exposures.
The above limitations involve a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional limitations. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites:
A non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing thereon code executable by a processor, the code comprising instructions executable for:
receiving geolocation data for an individual, the geolocation data comprising a geolocation and a future time;
accessing a health profile for the individual, the health profile comprising personal health and data attributes for the individual;
loading into the volatile memory, current exposure variables for a defined time interval, the current exposure variables representing conditions that are potentially detrimental to the health of the individual;
analyzing by an artificial intelligence engine the current exposure variables to identify a pattern in the current exposure variables and use the pattern in the current exposure variables to forecast future exposure variables at the future time;
determining based on the personal health and data attributes and the forecasted future exposure variables that the individual is at risk of a health event; and
generating an alert to the individual of the health event, the alert associated with the geolocation and future time.
The limitations of “receiving geolocation data…”, “accessing, from the second memory, a health profile…”, “loading into the volatile memory, current exposure variables…”, “analyzing by the artificial intelligence engine the current exposure variables…”, “determining…that the person is at risk…”, and “generating an alert…” is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional limitations of a non-transitory computer readable medium. The non-transitory computer-readable medium is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does 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 element of using a non-transitory computer-readable medium amounts 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the additional limitations of
wherein the code further comprises instructions executable for: scanning the future forecasted exposure variables for a single variable or a coupled variable that meets a health risk threshold; and
based on the single variable or coupled variable meeting the health risk threshold, increasing a risk score for the individual for the geolocation and the future time.
The above limitations involve a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional limitations. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites the additional limitations of
wherein the code further comprises instructions executable for:
identifying the single variable or the coupled variable and the health risk threshold based on the health profile of the individual.
The above limitations involve a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional limitations. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites the additional limitations of
wherein the current exposure variables comprise at least one of an environmental exposure variable, a disease exposure variable, or a toxin exposure variable.
The above limitations involve a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional limitations. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the additional limitations of
wherein the code further comprises instructions executable for overlying the alert on a digital map.
The above limitations involve a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional limitations. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim recites the additional limitations of
wherein the pattern comprises identified variables that trend together, an order in which the identified variables move, a velocity of movement of each respective identified variable in relation to the other identified variables.
The above limitations involve a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional limitations. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the claim recites the additional limitations of
wherein the code further comprises instructions executable for building the granular dynamic geolocation map dataset of exposures.
The above limitations involve a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional limitations. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites:
A computer-implemented method for early risk warning comprising:
receiving geolocation data for an individual, the geolocation data comprising a geolocation and a future time;
accessing a memory storing a health profile for the individual, the health profile comprising personal health and data attributes for the individual;
loading into a computer memory, current exposure variables for a defined time interval, the current exposure variables representing conditions that are potentially detrimental to the health of the individual;
analyzing by predictive artificial intelligence the current exposure variables to identify a pattern in the current exposure variables and use the pattern in the current exposure variables to forecast future exposure variables at the future time;
determining based on the personal health and data attributes and the forecasted future exposure variables that the individual is at risk of a health event; and
generating an alert to the individual of the health event, the alert associated with the geolocation and future time.
The limitations of “receiving geolocation data…”, “accessing, from a memory, a health profile…”, “loading into the computer memory, current exposure variables…”, “analyzing by the artificial intelligence engine the current exposure variables…”, “determining…that the person is at risk…”, and “generating an alert…” is a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites the additional limitations of a memory and a computer memory. The memory and computer memory are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim does 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 element of using memory amounts 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. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites the additional limitations of
scanning the future forecasted exposure variables for a single variable or a coupled variable that meets a health risk threshold; and
based on the single variable or coupled variable meeting the health risk threshold, increasing a risk score for the individual for the geolocation and the future time.
The above limitations involve a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional limitations. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the additional limitations of
identifying the single variable or the coupled variable and the health risk threshold based on the health profile of the individual.
The above limitations involve a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional limitations. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the claim recites the additional limitations of
wherein the current exposure variables comprise at least one of an environmental exposure variable, a disease exposure variable, or a toxin exposure variable.
The above limitations involve a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional limitations. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the claim recites the additional limitations of
overlying the alert on a digital map.
The above limitations involve a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional limitations. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites the additional limitations of
wherein the pattern comprises identified variables that trend together, an order in which the identified variables move, a velocity of movement of each respective identified variable in relation to the other identified variables.
The above limitations involve a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional limitations. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites the additional limitations of
building the granular dynamic geolocation map dataset of exposures.
The above limitations involve a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If claim limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites no additional limitations. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
There are no prior art rejections of claims 1-21; however, they are not allowable due to the 101 rejections as discussed above.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0197270 (Yan et al.) determining a health risk;
US Patent No. 11,504,011 (Jain et al.) discloses early detection and prevention of infectious disease transmission using location data and geofencing;
US Patent No. 10,834,548 (Mesirow et al.) discloses geolocation system;
US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0039339 (Bitran et al.) discloses computing system for identifying health risk regions;
US Patent No. 7,834,759 (Charlier et al.) discloses wireless sensor and system that determines exposure to an environmental element based on local conditions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KERRI L MCNALLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1840. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 am - 3:30 pm.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-3059. 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.
/KERRI L MCNALLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686