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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1–8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) receiving GPS location data from a mobile device, acquiring motion sensing data including gait patterns, activity sensing, and hand gestures using inertial sensors, acquiring cognitive ability sensing data including gaze tracking, voice and speech analysis, and interaction with a mobile application, acquiring physiological sensing data including heart rate variability, body temperature, and sweat analysis, obtaining a correlation score based on GPS location and alcohol consumption history, aggregating multiple sensor-derived inputs into an intoxication confidence score, and generating alerts based on threshold values.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely apply generic computing components, including a cloud server, mobile device, wearable device, and conventional sensors, to perform routine data acquisition, mathematical processing, and decision-making operations without improving computer functionality, sensor operation, or any other technological field.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited processors, memory, communication interfaces, and sensors (including GPS, accelerometer, PPG, camera, microphone, thermistor, and transdermal sensors), as well as mathematical equations for scoring (e.g., gait, physiology, responsiveness, and location weighting), merely perform well-understood, routine, and conventional functions such as data collection, calculation, and output generation. The dependent claims further recite variations of scoring formulas, thresholding, and alert conditions, which constitute mere mathematical refinements and application-specific parameterization that do not add an inventive concept.
Claims 9–16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a system comprising generic computer components including a memory, one or more hardware processors, communication interfaces, a cloud server, a wearable device, and a mobile device configured to perform the same data collection, scoring, aggregation, and alerting functions described in the method claims.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the system elements merely implement the abstract idea using generic computing infrastructure performing routine functions such as receiving sensor data, processing physiological and behavioral inputs, and generating a composite intoxication score, without any improvement to computer functionality, network architecture, or sensor processing techniques.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited computing components and sensors are used in their conventional manner. The dependent claims further recite mathematical expressions for computing gait abnormality, physiological abnormality, responsiveness to stimuli, and location correlation, which are generic mathematical operations applied to conventional data inputs and do not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed, perform steps of receiving sensor data (GPS, motion, cognitive, and physiological), computing correlation scores, aggregating inputs into an intoxication confidence score, and generating alerts or emergency notifications.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited instructions merely cause generic computing devices to execute routine data processing and decision-making functions using conventional sensors and standard computing architecture, without any improvement to the operation of a computer or technological field.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the storage medium and processor merely implement abstract mathematical scoring and classification logic using well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions. The dependent claims further recite thresholding schemes, normalization of scores, and conditional alert escalation (including SOS triggers), which are routine decision rules applied to abstract scoring outputs and do not add an inventive concept.
Taken individually and as an ordered combination, the claims merely:
collect information from conventional sensors,
apply mathematical scoring and weighting functions,
aggregate results into a composite score, and
trigger alerts based on threshold conditions.
These operations constitute data analysis and decision-making, which are abstract ideas. The additional elements, whether considered separately or in combination, are generic computing components performing routine functions and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOI C LAU whose telephone number is (571)272-8547. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00Pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached on (571)272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOI C LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights