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 .
This communication is in response to the amendment received on 06/12/2026. Claims 1-16 remain pending in this application.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-8, 11, 14 are drawn to a system which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 9, 12, 15 are drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process). Claims 10, 13, 16 are drawn to a non-transitory medium which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The independent claims 1, 9 and 10 have been amended to recite:
“…acquire user identification information for identifying a user;
acquire first biometric information of the user;
authenticate the user by comparing second biometric information associated with the user identification information with the first biometric information acquired;
detect based on the first biometric information that the user is infected with a disease;
acquire movement history information concerning each area through which the user passed, by using the user identification information;
create, using an imaging plan artificial intelligence model, an imaging request specifying a recommended imaging area to be captured for checking a state of the disease, based on the movement history information of an infected user who is infected with the disease and information on an outbreak region of the disease;
transmit the imaging request to a satellite system; and
acquire environmental information by analyzing satellite images of the recommended imaging area captures by the satellite system based on the imaging request”
The limitations of “acquire user identification information”, “acquire first biometric information of the user”, “acquire movement history…”, “authenticate the user by comparing second biometric information associated with the user identification information with the first biometric information acquired” and “detect based on the first biometric information that the user is infected with the disease” correspond to an abstract idea of “certain methods of organizing human activity”. This is a method of managing interactions between people, such as user following rules and instructions. The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor and generic memory devices does not take the claims out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping.
The dependent claims also correspond to a method of managing interactions between people (a user following rules and instructions), such as, claim 4 recites “the processor specifies a symptom of the user based on the face image and the body temperature, calculates a probability that the user is infected with the disease, and detect presence of the disease in the user in a case where the probability is equal to or greater than a threshold value” and claim 7 recites “determine whether or not one or more of a shape and color of the facial area is abnormal, determine whether or not a body temperature of the user is equal to or greater than a threshold value, and determine whether or not an initial symptom has occurred based on the face image of the user … whether or not the initial symptom of the disease appearing on a face has occurred, in response to an input of the face image, wherein the processor specifies the symptom of the user based on respective results from determining whether or not one or more of the shape and the color of the facial area is abnormal, determining whether or not the body temperature of the user is equal to or greater than a threshold value, and determining whether or not the initial symptom has occurred, and calculates the probability that the user is infected with the disease”. These limitations correspond to “certain methods of organizing human activity”, with a recitation of generic computing device (a processor).
The processor is described in the current speciation as a generic computing device. For instance, the specification recites “The processor 12 is a computer such as a CPU (Central Processing Unit) and controls the entire server 2 by executing programs prepared in advance. Incidentally, as the processor 12, the CPU, a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), a DSP (Digital Signal Processor), a MPU (Micro Processing Unit), a FPU (Floating Point number Processing Unit), a PPU (Physics Processing Unit), a TPU (Tensor Processing Unit), a quantum processor, a microcontroller, or a combination thereof can be used.” in [0021].
The limitation of “determine whether or not an initial symptom has occurred based on the face image of the user by using a machine learning model trained to output whether or not the initial symptom of the disease appearing on a face has occurred, in response to an input of the face image” within claim 7 and “the imaging plan artificial intelligence model is trained to examine the recommended imaging area and optimize the imaging request, based on the movement history information of the infected user who is infected with the disease and the information on the outbreak region of the disease” within newly added claims 11-13 corresponds to performing mathematical calculations, therefore the limitation falls within the “mathematical concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination and in ordered combination, it has been determined that the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 2-8, 11, 14, 12, 15, 13, 16 are ultimately dependent from claims 1, 9, 10 and include all the limitations of claims 1, 9, 10. Therefore, claims 2-8 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2-8, 11, 14, 12, 15, 13, 16 describe a further limitation regarding the basis for determining whether the user is infected with a disease and checking the state of the disease. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claims 1, 9, 10, without adding significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims recite the additional elements of “at least one memory configured to store instructions”, “at least one processor”, using the generic processor to perform: “authenticating the user”, “detecting the user is infected with a disease, acquire movement history of the user and determining an outbreak”, “creating, using an imaging plan artificial intelligence model, an imaging request specifying a recommended imaging area to be captured for checking a state of the disease, based on the movement history information of an infected user who is infected with the disease and information on an outbreak region of the disease; transmitting the imaging request to a satellite system; and acquiring environmental information by analyzing satellite images of the recommended imaging area captured by the satellite system based on the imaging request”, “determine whether or not an initial symptom has occurred based on the face image of the user by using a machine learning model trained to output whether or not the initial symptom of the disease appearing on a face has occurred, in response to an input of the face image”.
These additional elements are hardware and software elements, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these elements are merely invoked as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea in a particular technological environment, and mere instructions to apply/implement/automate an abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular field or technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)).
The processor in these steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining information based on acquired information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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.
Claims also recite other additional limitations beyond abstract idea, including functions such as acquiring data from/to a database, outputting data are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP 2106.05 (g)), which do not provide a practical application for the abstract idea.
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 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 element of using a processor to perform both the detecting and determining steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The newly added feature of “creating, using an imaging plan artificial intelligence model, an imaging request specifying a recommended imaging area to be captured for checking a state of the disease, based on the movement history information of an infected user who is infected with the disease and information on an outbreak region of the disease; transmitting the imaging request to a satellite system; and acquiring environmental information by analyzing satellite images of the recommended imaging area captured by the satellite system based on the imaging request” and the feature of acquiring information via a satellite system to obtain information based on user movement has been found to be a well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field, as evidenced by the article titled “Enhancing a Telemedicine Platform with Global Navigation Satellite System Technology and Clustering Algorithms for Supporting Epidemiological Analysis” published on2021 IEEE International Conference on Electronic Technology, Communication and Information (ICETCI), by Panicacci et al. (hereinafter Panicacci).
In particular, Panicacci discloses “The idea of this project is to empower an existing telemedicine platform, called E@syCare [13] with Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) technology to provide enhanced functionalities for the final users (both healthcare personnel and patients) and a commercial smartwatch, featuring as minimum a GNSS receiver, a heart rate (HR) sensor and an accelerometer, to monitor physical activity and track patient positions [14]. The use of satellite technologies allows to geo-tag all measurements and data, giving the possibility to healthcare authorities to perform analysis of correlation between the spread of a particular disease or virus and a specific geographical area, identifying whether specific environmental condition favour the spread of certain diseases or virus.” On page 410, par. 3. The well-understood, routine and conventional activities are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claims are not patent eligible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed below in the order in which they appear.
Applicant argues that the claim limitations of “authenticate the user by comparing second biometric information associated with the user identification information with the first biometric information acquired” and “detect based on the first biometric information that the user is infected with the disease” are not directed to “certain methods of organizing human activity”.
In response, Examiner submits that these limitations are directed to a method of managing interactions between people, such as user following rules and instructions. Applicant argues that the information collection device in the claims does not fall in the sub-groups of the methods of organizing human activity. In response, Examiner submits that the information collection device is one of the additional elements that is directed to hardware element, and it is directed to a generic computing system including at least one memory and at least one processor. The information collection system is described in the current specification as generic computing system, such as:
“[0015] In the health management system 100, an input terminal 1, a server 2, a satellite system 3, and a hospital system 4 are communicably connected via a network 5 such as the Internet. The input terminal 1 is an information processing device installed in the refugee camp or the like in each region, and can acquire the refugee ID from the card which a user holds over the input terminal 1. In addition, the input terminal 1 is provided with a camera and a thermographic camera, and can acquire a face image and a body temperature of the user.
[0016] The server 2 is an information processing device which processes, stores, and exchanges various types of data, analyzes information acquired from the input terminal 1 and the environmental information to be described later to diagnose whether the user is suffering from a predetermined disease, and outputs information for persuading the user to seek a medical consultation of a doctor if necessary. Here, the user who suffers from a predetermined disease is also referred to as an infected user. In addition, the server 2 sends a request to the satellite system 3 for imaging of each area through which the infected user has passed.
[0017] The satellite system 3 is formed by an information processing device which processes, stores, and exchanges various types of data. The satellite system 3 is a system for managing an operation of an artificial satellite, and records changes by imaging the same point at a specified interval using the artificial satellite and captures images at a predetermined point using the artificial satellite in response to an emergency imaging request. Specifically, if that imaging request is received from the server 2, the satellite system 3 captures images of an area specified by the artificial satellite, and transmits the captured images or videos as satellite images to the server.
[0018] The hospital system 4 is formed by an information processing device for processing, storing and exchanging various types of data. The hospital system 4 is a system which manages medical appointments and the like of hospitals. Specifically, in a case where the hospital system 4 acquires information such as the refugee ID of each infected user, a symptom, and a disease name from the server 2, the hospital system 4 makes each medical appointment, and sends each date and time of the medical appointment to the server 2.” in [0015]-]0018].
Applicant argues that claims are directed to a practical application, because claims recite additional elements that meaningfully employ information, the limitations of “transmitting the imaging request to satellite system” and “acquiring environmental information by analyzing satellite images of the recommended imaging area captured by the satellite system based on the imaging request” provide for the control of a satellite to capture imaging information that is more salient.
In response, Examiner submits that the feature of “creating, using an imaging plan artificial intelligence model, an imaging request specifying a recommended imaging area to be captured for checking a state of the disease, based on the movement history information of an infected user who is infected with the disease and information on an outbreak region of the disease; transmitting the imaging request to a satellite system; and acquiring environmental information by analyzing satellite images of the recommended imaging area captured by the satellite system based on the imaging request” and the feature of acquiring information via a satellite system to obtain information based on user movement has been found to be a well-understood, routine and conventional activity in the field, as evidenced by the article titled “Enhancing a Telemedicine Platform with Global Navigation Satellite System Technology and Clustering Algorithms for Supporting Epidemiological Analysis” published on2021 IEEE International Conference on Electronic Technology, Communication and Information (ICETCI), by Panicacci et al. (hereinafter Panicacci).
In particular, Panicacci discloses “The idea of this project is to empower an existing telemedicine platform, called E@syCare [13] with Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) technology to provide enhanced functionalities for the final users (both healthcare personnel and patients) and a commercial smartwatch, featuring as minimum a GNSS receiver, a heart rate (HR) sensor and an accelerometer, to monitor physical activity and track patient positions [14]. The use of satellite technologies allows to geo-tag all measurements and data, giving the possibility to healthcare authorities to perform analysis of correlation between the spread of a particular disease or virus and a specific geographical area, identifying whether specific environmental condition favour the spread of certain diseases or virus.” On page 410, par. 3. The well-understood, routine and conventional activities are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, claims 1-16 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILEK B COBANOGLU whose telephone number is (571)272-8295. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 ET.
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, Obeid Mamon can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/DILEK B COBANOGLU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights