DETAILED ACTION
Notices to Applicant
This communication is a non-final rejection. Claims 1-20, as filed 02/05/2025, are currently pending and have been considered below.
Priority is generally acknowledged to PCT/US2023/029833 (08/09/2023) and 63/398,303 (08/16/2022).
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon and the rationale supporting the rejection would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, the term “the one or more further operations” lacks antecedent basis.
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 non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter 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.
Step 1
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process, machine, and/or article of manufacture which recite:
1. A monitoring device for providing a notification to a contact based on a profile configuration associated with a client user comprising: a memory storing one or more computer-readable instructions; and a processor configured to execute the one or more computer-readable instructions to: (additional element – merely applying the abstract idea with a computer)
receive user location data from a client device associated with the client user; (additional element – insignificant extra-solution activity; data-gathering)
determine a location of the client user based on the user location data; (mental process because a caregiver can mentally infer where another person is by looking at location information)
receive user sensor data from the client device; (additional element – insignificant extra-solution activity; data-gathering)
determine a status of the client user based on the user sensor data and the location; (mental process because a caregiver can review patient sensor and location information and evaluate whether the person is asleep, non-responsive, or awake) and
provide the notification to the contact based on the profile configuration, wherein the notification comprises the status (abstract idea – certain methods of organizing human activity, namely, patient monitoring and notifying emergency contacts; alternatively, this amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, namely, mere data output).
2. The monitoring device of claim 1, wherein the user location data comprises any of a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), an amplitude of a received signal from the client device, a phase shift of the received signal from the client device, or any combination thereof (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering).
3. The monitoring device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute one or more instructions to: pair the client device with the monitoring device (applying the abstract idea with a computer; insignificant extra-solution activity).
4. The monitoring device of claim 1, wherein the user sensor data comprises biometric data associated with the client user (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering).
5. The monitoring device of claim 4, wherein the biometric data comprises any of a movement indicator, a sleep indicator, a blood pressure, a temperature, a pulse, or any combination thereof associated with the client user (insignificant extra-solution activity, data gathering).
6. The monitoring device of claim 1, wherein the providing the notification comprises the status, the location, or both (abstract idea – certain methods of organizing human activity, namely, patient monitoring and notifying emergency contacts; alternatively, this amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity, namely, mere data output).
7. The monitoring device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute one or more instructions to: send the user location data and the user sensor data to a monitoring system; and receive from the monitoring system one or more parameters (applying the abstract idea with a computer),
wherein determining the location and the status is based on the one or more parameters (mental process because a caregiver can review patient sensor and location information and make evaluations).
Claims 1-7 are presented as an exemplary claim but the same analysis applies to the other claims 8-20.
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because, for example, determining a location of the client and a status of the client can be performed by a caregiver reviewing various information and making a mental evaluation. Other than reciting generic computer terms like memory and a processor, nothing in the claims precludes the determining steps from practically being performed in the mind.
The claims also include certain methods of organizing human activity because reviewing patient data and alerting caregivers are analogous to steps a medical team would perform while monitoring a patient.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims, add insignificant extra-solution activity, or merely applying the abstract ideas with a computer as described in greater detail above.
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. For example, memory story instructions and a processor configured to execute the instructions amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see applicant’s specification [0044] and [0057]-[0058], see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. For example, receiving user location and sensor data amounts to mere data gathering, and providing notifications amount to data output, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims as described in greater detail above. For example, claim 3 recites additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields. For example, receiving user location and sensor data amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i), performing repetitive calculations, Flook, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(ii), electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii), and/or storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims. Additionally, pairing a device in claim 3 amounts to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as described in the attached Wikipedia article titled Pairing (computing). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sobol (US20190209022A1) in view of Duino (Justin Duino, "How to Enable Fall Detection and Set Up Emergency Contacts on Apple Watch", How-To Geek, October 9, 2019, XP093094419).
Regarding claim 1, Sobol discloses: A monitoring device for providing a notification to a contact based on a profile configuration associated with a client user comprising: a memory storing one or more computer-readable instructions; and a processor configured to execute the one or more computer-readable instructions (“a non-transitory computer readable medium, a processor that is configured to perform a predefined set of operations in response to receiving a corresponding instruction,” [0010]) to:
--receive user location data from a client device associated with the client user (“acquiring, using the wearable electronic device, location data from at least one of BLE location data and GNSS location data, and wirelessly transmitting the location data from the wearable electronic device to a wireless LPWAN receiver using a star topology network,” [0041]; [0120]; “It acts as a duplicating, packet-forwarding device by first receiving LPWAN radio signals from events recorded and stored in memory 173B (that will be discussed in more detail in conjunction with FIGS. 2F and 2G) of the wearable electronic device 100. The gateway 300 takes these events and forwards them to the backhaul server 400,” [0136]);
--determine a location of the client user based on the user location data (“One approach that may be used to estimate the location of the wearable electronic device 100 through RSSI involves so-called fingerprinting, where a pre-recorded ground truth map of the area of interest is created to infer locations through a best-matching method,” [0133]);
--receive user sensor data from the client device (“detect physiological data includes at least one sensor selected from the group consisting of a heart rate sensor…” [0015]; “accelerometers, gyroscopes and related MEMs-based embodiments of sensors 121 are used to acquire baseline data,” [0166]);
--determine a status of the client user based on the user sensor data and the location (“The device may transmit some or all of its acquired data to a larger system, including a cloud-based server to, in addition to providing location-based data, be used as a part of a predictive health care protocol to correlate changes in acquired data to salient indicators of the health of a wearer of the device. In one form, the predictive health care protocol uses a machine learning model,” Abstract; “As such, at least one of the backhaul server and the wearable electronic device has a machine code to execute a machine learning model to classify the health condition of the individual based at least in part on at least a portion of the LEAP data,” [0030]); and
--provide the notification to the contact based on the profile configuration, (“sending notifications to caregivers and family applications,” [0139]).
Sobol discloses notifications to caregivers does not expressly disclose the content of those notification. Duino teaches enabling fall detection on an Apple Watch (pages 1 and 2) which leads to notifications to emergency contacts (page 4; “If you do fall and 911 is called, your emergency contacts will also be contacted alongside a GPS location so you can be located” on page 7).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to expand the monitoring architecture of Sobol with caregiver notifications to include the emergency notifications with event and location data because this would improve user monitoring and health by allowing the caregiver to understand what happened and where to find the person using the wearable device (page 7).
Regarding claim 2, Sobol discloses: wherein the user location data comprises any of a received signal strength indicator (RSSI), an amplitude of a received signal from the client device, a phase shift of the received signal from the client device, or any combination thereof (“the wearable electronic device 100 may measure RSSI and use this measurement to assist with location determination of the relative position between them,” [0126]).
Regarding claim 3, Sobol discloses: wherein the processor is further configured to execute one or more instructions to: pair the client device with the monitoring device (“communication between the wearable electronic device 100 and the gateway 300 may be configured such that up to six different LoRaWAN™ network credentials may be stored to allow hopping between credentials seamlessly if one isn't available or otherwise loses connectivity,” [0136]; the Examiner notes that Duino independently teaches that the wearable is paired with a smartphone).
Regarding claim 4, Sobol discloses: wherein the user sensor data comprises biometric data associated with the client user (“at least one of the sensors that are configured to detect physiological data includes at least one sensor selected from the group consisting of a heart rate sensor, a breathing rate sensor…” [0015]).
Regarding claim 5, Sobol discloses: wherein the biometric data comprises any of a movement indicator, a sleep indicator, a blood pressure, a temperature, a pulse, or any combination thereof associated with the client user (“at least one of the sensors that are configured to detect physiological data includes at least one sensor selected from the group consisting of a heart rate sensor…a temperature sensor…a pulse oximetry sensor…” [0015]).
Regarding claim 6, Sobol discloses: wherein the providing the notification comprises the status, the location, or both (“machine code to send an alert through the third wireless communication sub-module when the transmitted location data indicates that an individual is situated outside a predetermined area,” [0037]; room data in [0185]).
Regarding claim 7, Sobol discloses: wherein the processor is further configured to execute one or more instructions to:
--send the user location data and the user sensor data to a monitoring system (“The method also includes wirelessly transmitting at least a portion of the LEAP data from the wearable electronic device to a wireless low power wide area network receiver using a star topology network, as well as executing a machine learning model based at least in part on at least a portion of the LEAP data,” [0061]); and
--receive from the monitoring system one or more parameters, wherein determining the location and the status is based on the one or more parameters (“(iv) rules for sending notifications to caregivers and family applications,” [0139]; “much or all of the data and models (such as machine learning or cloud analytics models as discussed elsewhere in this disclosure) may be hosted on a server in the cloud 500, allowing the end user to access it through the internet,” [0140]).
Claims 8-14 and 15-20 are substantially similar to claims 1-7 and are rejected with the same reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ihrig (US20210125481A1) discloses generating a RSSI profile for a person’s daily movement and generating an alert for a deviation (Abstract and claim 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BLANCHETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-2299. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 7:30AM - 6:00PM, EST.
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, Shahid Merchant, can be reached on (571) 270-1360. 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.
/JOSHUA B BLANCHETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights