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 1-20 are pending and examined hereinbelow.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. This application is a continuation of U.S. Application No. 17/657,297, filed on March 30, 2022, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/168,815, filed on March 31, 2021.
Claim Interpretation
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989). With regard to claims 15-20, Examiner interprets the term “computer readable medium” as expressly defined to include any type of computer readable storage device and/or storage disk and to exclude propagating signals. (see Applicant’s specification, para. 68).
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.
5. 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).
6. 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).
7. 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:
identify geographic coordinates of a proposed new resource for a resource type;
identify block groups near the geographic coordinates of the proposed new resource, wherein each of the block groups defines a contiguous geographical area in which residents reside;
for each of the block groups:
retrieve 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; and
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.
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.
These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“one or more controllers”) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (identifying, retrieving, determining, identifying). 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.
8. 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:
9. 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.
Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
10. The following is an examiner’s statement of subject matter free of the prior art:
The ordered combination of limitations in independent claims 1, 10, and 14 stating, in part:
identify geographic coordinates of a proposed new resource for a resource type;
identify block groups near the geographic coordinates of the proposed new resource, wherein each of the block groups defines a contiguous geographical area in which residents reside;
for each of the block groups:
retrieve 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; and
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.
The most remarkable prior arts of record are as follows:
a. Cahan (US Patent App No 2017/0351833) [hereinafter Cahan];
b. Cobbs (US Patent App No 2007/0094045) [hereinafter Cobbs]; -AND-
C. Roesch (US Patent No 8,666,771) [hereinafter Roesch].
Cahan teaches obtaining health risk prevalence level data containing health risk prevalence levels for one or more health risks over a given geographical area.
Cobbs teaches providing a message notification associated with care of a patient in a health care environment, comprising: receiving a message from a source; receiving location information associated with a patient. The method also includes outputting in a geospatial arrangement via a graphical user interface the location information associated with the patient, and a notification of a message from the source. In addition, the method includes updating the graphical user interface when a change occurs in either the location information associated with the patient or status of the message from the source.
Roesch teaches planning at a healthcare facility employs a database that stores health care facility impacting data including demographic data describing a preselected set of aspects of a population residing within a defined geographic area. A simulator applies modeling tools to the health care facility impacting data and generates output data corresponding to selected data in the health care facility impacting data.
Neither Cahan, Cobbs, nor Roesch, individually or in combination, disclose, teach or suggest the following limitations of the independent claims:
retrieve 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; and
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.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are free of the prior art.
Conclusion
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