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 .
Notice to Applicant
Claims 1, 10, and 14 have been amended. Now, claims 1-20 are pending and examined hereinbelow.
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.
3. Claims 1-20 are directed to determining effects of proposed health resources, which is considered managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Managing personal behavior falls within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). Additionally, claims 1-20 are also directed to identifying proposed new health resources, which is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations and evaluations. Observations and evaluations fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Mental processes). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea).
4. Under step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claim 1-9 recite a system comprising a controller. Claims 10-13 recite a method and at least one step. Claims 14-20 recite a computer readable medium. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (manufacture, process, and apparatus).
5. Under step 2A of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a system for determining effects of proposed health resources, in the following limitations:
generate a geographic region-of-interest that at least partially includes one or more block groups, wherein each of the block groups defines a geographical area with residents;
identify geographic coordinates of a proposed new resource for a resource type within the geographic region-of-interest based on a user input received;
identify which of the block groups are near the geographic coordinates of the proposed new resource;
for each of the block groups:
identify a desert level that is indicative of a scarcity of the resource type in the respective block group; and
determine a sphere of daily economic activity of the respective block group;
identify, in real time, affected block groups that are affected by the proposed new resource by determining which of the sphere of daily economic activities of the respective block groups overlaps with the geographic coordinates of the proposed new resource;
identify, in real time, affected pre-existing resources that are affected by the proposed new resource;
determine, in real time, a new crowding level for each of the affected pre-existing resources by dividing a number of people predicted to access the respective affected pre-existing resource by a capacity of the respective affected pre-existing resource;
determine, in real time, a new desert score for each of the affected block groups based on an average of the new crowding levels of the affected pre-existing resources and the new proposed resource that are within the sphere of daily economic activity of the respective block group; and
update, in real time, the geographic region-of-interest to present the new desert score of each affected block group located within the geographic region-of-interest.
The above-recited limitations manage personal behaviors or interactions between people to aid in the determining the effects of proposed health resources. This arrangement amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Additionally, the above-recited limitations include observations and evaluations that can be performed in the mind to identify proposed new health resources. This arrangement amounts to concepts performed in the human mind. Such concepts have been considered ineligible mental processes by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)).
Claim 1 does recite additional elements:
one or more controllers configured to;
for a computing device;
an interface.
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“one or more controllers”; “a computing device”; “an interface”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (generating, identifying, determining, identifying, and updating). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 64, 66, 70-73, 78, 79, and 119-122 indicate that the embodiments described herein are possible examples of implementations and are merely set forth for a clear understanding of the principles of the features described herein. Many variations and modifications may be made to the above-described embodiment(s) without substantially departing from the spirit and principles of the techniques, processes, devices, and systems described herein. All such modifications are intended to be included herein within the scope of this disclosure and protected by the following claims. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim.
Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea.
6. Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea
Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent.
Independent Claims 10 and 14 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons.
Dependent Claims:
7. Dependent Claims 2-9, 11-13 and 15-20 add further limitations which are also directed to an abstract idea.
For example, Claims 3, 11, and 16 sets forth:
apply to Haversine formula to identify a distance between the proposed new resource and a center point of each of the block groups; and
use a point-set intersection routine.
Claim 8, 12, and 19 sets forth:
determine a respective resident count predicted to access the respective affected pre-existing resource for each of the affected block groups; and
sum the resident counts together.
Claim 9, 13, and 20 sets forth:
identify a distance between the proposed new resource and a center point of the respective affected block group; and
apply a cubic delay function to the distance between the proposed new resource and the center point of the respective affected block group
Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of determining effects of proposed health resources. These limitations are mathematical calculations. Mathematical Calculations fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Mathematical concepts). While the claim does set forth the additional limitation of “the one or more controllers”, this recitation is similar to the additional limitations in claim 1, as it does no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1.
Response to Arguments8.
8. Applicant's arguments filed June 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
A. Applicant argues that the claims do not recite an abstract idea, that the claims do not recite a mental process and that the claims do not recite certain methods of organizing human activity.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims are merely organizing and analyzing data, the structural elements as claimed are for mere convenience and the recited claim elements steps amount to functions performable in the mind or with pen and paper and are only concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information (i.e. generating a geographic region-of-interest, identify geographic coordinates, identify affected pre-existing resources, determine a new crowding level, determine a new desert score, update the geographic region-of-interest) in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c)(2) citing the abstract idea grouping for mental processes in a computer environment). These steps also amount to methods of organizing human activity which includes functions relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior, (i.e. identify which block groups are near the geographic coordinates, identify a desert level, determine a sphere of daily of economic activity, identify affected block groups) (MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) citing the abstract idea grouping for methods of organizing human activity for managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). As a result, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and the claims are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non- statutory subject matter. The claim is silent on any computer operation and specific technological implementation that would move the claim beyond a general link to a technological environment.
Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
B. Applicant argues that the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, that the claims are directed to an improvement to a technological field, and that the claims amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps of the claim limitations outlined above in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection are comprised of generic computer elements to perform an existing business process. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer- related technology. The displaying of a limited set of information is not a technological improvement. It does not improve the function of the computer or how the system presents data. Further, the improvement is not to the functioning of computers, the computing device is recited at a high-level of generality that it merely adds the words apply it with the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106), where nothing specific with regard to the computing devices are claimed at all. Regarding, the steps that Applicant points to (rules for a specific implementation of displaying a limited set of information, namely desert scores of block groups affected by a proposed new resource, to a user via an interface of a computing device) are merely narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has been found to be ineffective to render an abstract idea eligible. The structural elements of the present application (i.e. “one or more controllers”; “a computing device”; “an interface”, etc.) are used as tools to perform an existing business process and does not improve upon a technology, technological field or computer-related technology.
Questions of preemption are inherent in the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (incorporated in the 2014 IEG as Steps 2A and 2B), and are resolved by using this framework to distinguish between preemptive claims, and "those that integrate the building blocks into something more...the latter pose no comparable risk of pre-emption, and therefore remain eligible". This framework found that the claims do tie up the exception. (See the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection above).
Further, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). (Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The claims do not recite any unconventional computer functions. There are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and the claims are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non- statutory subject matter. The claim is silent on any computer operation and specific technological implementation that would move the claim beyond a general link to a technological environment.
Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Method for enabling communications dependent on user location, user-specified location or orientation (20050222752) teaches enabling communications in a wireless communications network on the basis of user-specified locations or orientations, having particular utility to vehicle-based communications. Users of the network broadcast their locations and orientations (headings) to a central server. Using his user interface, a user can specify either a location or a heading and transmit the same to the server.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBER ALTSCHUL MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 8AM-6PM.
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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
/AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682
Prosecution Insights