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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 21-40 are pending in the present application with claims 21, 29, and 37 being independent, as set forth in the Preliminary Amendment dated September 18, 2025.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more:
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 21-28 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 29-36 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine), and claims 37-40 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., a manufacture). Accordingly, claims 21-40 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories. 35 USC §101.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (which collectively includes the guidance in the January 7, 2019 Federal Register notice and the October 2019 and July 2024 updates issued by the USPTO as incorporated into the MPEP, as supported by relevant case law), the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 29 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 29 recites:
A system comprising a processing device and a non-transitory machine-readable storage device storing instructions that are executable by the processing device to cause performance of operations comprising:
maintaining sensor data generated by one or more sensors that indicates one or more characteristics of a person;
maintaining a predictive model for the person that is configured to process sensor data that indicates characteristics of the person to compute one or more patterns of the person;
updating an activity profile of the person that indicates the one or more patterns of the person by processing the sensor data using the predictive model;
determining one or more actions to perform for the person by processing the activity profile of the person; and
causing performance of the one or more actions.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations recite: (a) “certain methods of organizing human activity” because maintaining and analyzing sensor data generated by sensors indicative of characteristics of a person to compute one or more patterns of the person, determining actions to perform for the person by processing an activity profile indicating the patterns of the person, and actually performing the actions relates to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Furthermore, the foregoing underlined limitations recite (b) “mental processes” because they are observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind (e.g., with pen and paper). These recitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are similar to how the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in the claims were characterized to be "mental processes" in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQe2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 22-24, 28, 30-32, 36, and 38-40 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below:
-Claims 22, 30, and 38 recite how determining the one or more actions includes detecting, using the activity profile of the person, an abnormal event for the person; and determining the one or more actions using data that indicates the abnormal event for the person which just further defines the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” discussed above.
-Claims 23, 31, and 39 recite how the activity profile of the person includes one or more threshold values for abnormal events involving the person; and detecting the abnormal event for the person includes detecting an occurrence of an event that satisfies at least one of the one or more threshold values, all of which just further defines the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” discussed above.
-Claims 24, 32, and 40 recite how one of the actions includes generating a notification for the abnormal event and causing performance of the generating which just further defines the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “mental processes” discussed above.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A system comprising a processing device and a non-transitory machine-readable storage device storing instructions that are executable by the processing device to cause performance of operations comprising (using computers or machinery as mere tools to perform the abstract idea as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
maintaining sensor data generated by one or more sensors that indicates one or more characteristics of a person;
maintaining a predictive model for the person that is configured to (merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) process sensor data that indicates characteristics of the person to compute one or more patterns of the person;
updating an activity profile of the person that indicates the one or more patterns of the person by processing the sensor data using the predictive model (extra-solution activity (data gathering) as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g));
determining one or more actions to perform for the person by processing the activity profile of the person; and
causing performance of the one or more actions.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above-identified additional limitations, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the processing device and non-transitory machine-readable storage device storing instructions, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of the predictive model that processes the sensor data, the Examiner submits that this limitation amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The claim includes no non-mentally performable details regarding how the predictive model is generated, executed, etc. Claims drafted using largely (if not entirely) result-focused functional language, containing no specificity about how the purported invention achieves those results, are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101.” Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
Regarding the additional limitation of updating an activity profile of the person that indicates the one or more patterns of the person, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 29 and analogous independent claims 21 and 37 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, representative independent claim 29 and analogous independent claims 21 and 37 are directed to at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
-Claims 25 and 33 recite how causing performance of the one or more actions includes, in response to detecting the abnormal event, initiating a voice connection between a property where the person is located and a central monitoring station which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
-Claims 26 and 34 recite how one of the actions includes generating, using the activity profile of the person, instructions for presentation of a graphical interface that indicates a current health condition of the person; and causing performance of the one or more actions includes generating, using the activity profile of the person, instructions for presentation of a graphical interface that indicates a current health condition of the person. These limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f))(e.g., displaying data with a GUI).
-Claims 27 and 35 recite how at least some of the sensors are integrated into a mobile device of the person and how the method includes receiving, from the mobile device of the person, at least some of the sensor data that was generated by the at least some of the one or more sensors integrated into the mobile device. These limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
When the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 29 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the processing device and non-transitory machine-readable storage device storing instructions, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitations of the predictive model that processes the sensor data, the Examiner submits that this limitation amounts to merely reciting the idea of a solution or outcome without reciting details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished which is equivalent to the words “apply it” (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). The claim includes no non-mentally performable details regarding how the predictive model is generated, executed, etc. Claims drafted using largely (if not entirely) result-focused functional language, containing no specificity about how the purported invention achieves those results, are almost always found to be ineligible for patenting under Section 101.” Beteiro, LLC v. DraftKings Inc., 104 F.4th 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2024).
Regarding the additional limitations directed to updating an activity profile of the person that indicates the one or more patterns of the person which the Examiner submits merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) as discussed above, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined such limitations to not be unconventional as they merely consist of updating an activity log. See Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715, 112 USPQ2d 1750, 1754 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II))
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
-Claims 25 and 33 recite how causing performance of the one or more actions includes, in response to detecting the abnormal event, initiating a voice connection between a property where the person is located and a central monitoring station which amounts to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
-Claims 26 and 34 recite how one of the actions includes generating, using the activity profile of the person, instructions for presentation of a graphical interface that indicates a current health condition of the person; and causing performance of the one or more actions includes generating, using the activity profile of the person, instructions for presentation of a graphical interface that indicates a current health condition of the person. These limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f))(e.g., displaying data with a GUI).
-Claims 27 and 35 recite how at least some of the sensors are integrated into a mobile device of the person and how the method includes receiving, from the mobile device of the person, at least some of the sensor data that was generated by the at least some of the one or more sensors integrated into the mobile device. These limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, claims 21-40 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-24, 26-32, and 34-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0076037 to Bharati et al. (“Bharati”):
Regarding claim 21, Bharati discloses a computer-implemented method (Figures 1-2 and 5, the Abstract, and [0072] illustrate/disclose a computer-implemented method for micro and macro activity detection and monitoring), comprising:
maintaining sensor data generated by one or more sensors that indicates one or more characteristics of a person ([0029]-[0031], [0044]-[0045], and [0054-[0056] discuss obtaining/storing/maintaining sensor data from various types of sensors such as an accelerometer, a blood oxygen sensor, etc., where such sensor data is indicative of characteristics of a patient (e.g., movements, blood oxygen levels, etc.));
maintaining a predictive model for the person that is configured to process sensor data that indicates characteristics of the person to compute one or more patterns of the person ([0029], [0032], [0058]-[0062] disclose using a trained ML model (predictive model) that processes received sensor data (which is indicative of patient characteristics as noted above) to determine micro and macro activities such as walking, swimming, other activities, etc. (patterns of the person));
updating an activity profile of the person that indicates the one or more patterns of the person by processing the sensor data using the predictive model ([0019], [0036], [0058], [0063] discuss accumulating/aggregating/storing the activities (patterns) determined by the ML model for the patient over time (updating an activity profile of the person));
determining one or more actions to perform for the person by processing the activity profile of the person ([0019], [0029], [0064], [0065] discuss how the system detects a dangerous activity when for instance an amount of time spent walking or exercise intensity level (activities in the “activity profile”) exceeds a threshold value and then outputting notifications regarding the dangerous activity/abnormal event including remedial actions to assist with alleviating the abnormal event in response to detection thereof; as the notifications are output (actions are performed), they are thus first determined); and
causing performance of the one or more actions ([0019], [0029], [0064], [0065] disclose outputting remedial notifications (causing performance of the actions)).
Regarding claim 22, Bharati discloses the method of claim 21, further including wherein determining the one or more actions to perform for the person by processing the activity profile of the person comprises:
detecting, using the activity profile of the person, an abnormal event for the person ([0019], [0029], [0064], [0065] discuss how the system detects a dangerous activity (abnormal event) when for instance an amount of time spent walking or exercise intensity level (activities in the “activity profile”) exceeds a threshold value; and
determining the one or more actions using data that indicates the abnormal event for the person ([0019], [0029], [0064], [0065] discuss outputting notifications regarding the dangerous activity/abnormal event including remedial actions to assist with alleviating the abnormal event in response to detection thereof; as the notifications are output (actions are performed), they are thus first determined).
Regarding claim 23, Bharati discloses the method of claim 22, further including wherein:
the activity profile of the person comprises one or more threshold values for abnormal events involving the person ([0048]-[0053] and [0064] discuss how a profile for the patient may include one or more threshold values such as “do not exceed” thresholds (abnormal event thresholds); furthermore, as the accumulated activities/patterns and the threshold values are both associated with the patient, they are part of the “activity profile” for the patient); and
detecting the abnormal event for the person comprises detecting an occurrence of an event that satisfies at least one of the one or more threshold values ([0048]-[0053] and [0064] discuss generating a notification/alert when one of the thresholds is exceeded (detecting occurrence of abnormal event)).
Regarding claim 24, Bharati discloses the method of claim 22, further including wherein:
one of the one or more actions comprises generating a notification for the abnormal event ([0048]-[0053] and [0064] discuss generating a notification/alert when one of the thresholds is exceeded (generating notification for abnormal event)); and
causing performance of the one or more actions comprises generating a notification for the abnormal event ([0048]-[0053] and [0064] discuss generating a notification/alert when one of the thresholds is exceeded (generating notification for abnormal event)).
Regarding claim 26, Bharati discloses the method of claim 21, further including wherein:
one of the one or more actions comprises generating, using the activity profile of the person, instructions for presentation of a graphical interface that indicates a current health condition of the person ([0019], [0029], [0038], [0065]-[0069] discuss how the notifications regarding the dangerous/detrimental situations and remedial action notifications (which provide an indication of a current health condition such as in relation to heart rate, pulse rate, number of steps achieved, etc.) are presented on the smartphone which is on its graphical interface); and
causing performance of the one or more actions comprises generating, using the activity profile of the person, instructions for presentation of a graphical interface that indicates a current health condition of the person (again, [0019], [0029], [0038], [0065]-[0069] discuss how the notifications regarding the dangerous/detrimental situations and remedial action notifications (which provide an indication of a current health condition such as in relation to heart rate, pulse rate, number of steps achieved, etc.) are presented on the smartphone which is on its graphical interface)).
Regarding claim 27, Bharati discloses the method of claim 21, further including wherein:
at least some of the one or more sensors are integrated into a mobile device of the person ([0024] and [0030] disclose how the sensors can be integrated into a patient’s smartwatch, an ECG sensor worn by the patient, etc.), the method comprising:
receiving, from the mobile device of the person, at least some of the sensor data that was generated by the at least some of the one or more sensors integrated into the mobile device ([0045], [0054] discuss receiving sensor signals from the smartwatch/mobile device).
Regarding claim 28, Bharati discloses the method of claim 21, further including wherein:
the activity profile comprises parameter values that are indicative of normal activity of the person ([0033]-[0036] and [0058]-[0064] discuss using the trained ML technique (predictive model) to generate accumulated micro and macro activities (“activity profile” as noted above, which includes, for example, intensity levels, type of physical activity, etc. (“parameter values”) per [0061]-[0062]) for the user and comparing the macro and micro activities to profile thresholds to determine compliance; accordingly, when a result of the comparison is that there is compliance, then the macro and micro activity parameters are indicative of normal activity of the user (not abnormal/dangerous such as when exceeding thresholds));
at least one of the parameter values of the activity profile indicates a rate of physical activity of the person (exercise level in [0037], number of steps in [0050], intensity level in [0062], minutes of aerobic exercise in [0065]); and
determining the one or more actions to perform for the person by processing the activity profile of the person comprises determining the one or more actions using the at least one of the parameter values that indicates a rate of physical activity of the person ([0065] discloses generating an alert notification to the patient to find time for additional exercise when the amount of exercise performed is too low (determining the action using the rate of physical activity parameter value of the person)).
Regarding claim 29, Bharati discloses a system comprising a processing device and a non-transitory machine-readable storage device storing instructions that are executable by the processing device to cause performance of operations ([0072]).
The remaining limitations of claim 29 are disclosed by Bharati as discussed above in relation to claim 21.
Claims 30-32 and 34-36 are rejected in view of Bharati as respectively discussed above in relation to claims 22-24 and 26-28.
Regarding claim 37, Bharati discloses a non-transitory machine-readable storage device storing instructions that are executable by a processing device to cause performance of operations ([0072]).
The remaining limitations of claim 37 are disclosed by Bharati as discussed above in relation to claim 21.
Claims 38-40 are rejected in view of Bharati as respectively discussed above in relation to claims 22-24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 25 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0076037 to Bharati et al. (“Bharati”) in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2016/0373909 to Rasmussen et al. (“Rasmussen”):
Regarding claim 25, Bharati discloses the method of claim 22, but appears to be silent regarding wherein causing performance of the one or more actions comprises, in response to detecting the abnormal event, initiating a voice connection between a property where the person is located and a central monitoring station that monitors the property.
However, Bharti does disclose ([0055]) how the system can monitor/determine a location of the patient such as within a building/business/gym (a property).
Furthermore, Rasmussen teaches ([0019], [0110]) that it was known in the user monitoring art to detect that an emergency (abnormal event) is occurring at a property and initiate a two-wall call (voice connection) between a person at the property and a remote emergency response service (central monitoring station that monitors the property) to advantageously facilitate resolution of the emergency/abnormal situation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for causing performance of the one or more actions to include, in response to detecting the abnormal event, initiating a voice connection between a property where the person is located and a central monitoring station that monitors the property in the method of Bharati as taught by Rasmussen to advantageously facilitate resolution of the emergency/abnormal situation. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the prior art to achieve the claimed invention and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in doing so. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Furthermore, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Id.
Claim 33 is rejected in view of the Bharati/Rasmussen combination as discussed above in relation to claim 25.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
NPL “The SmartHabits: An Intelligent Privacy-Aware Home Care Assistance System” discloses an intelligent privacy-aware home care assistance system. The novel system comprising smart home-based and cloud-based parts uses machine-learning technology to provide peace of mind to informal caregivers caring for persons living alone. It does so by learning the user’s typical daily activity patterns and automatically issuing warnings if an unusual situation is detected. The system was designed and implemented from scratch, building upon existing practices from IoT reference architecture and microservices.
NPL “Health Monitoring in Smart Homes Utilizing Internet of Things” discloses recent state-of-the-art research on the field of IoT for health monitoring and smart homes, examines several potential use-cases of blending the technology, and proposes integration with an existing smart home testbed for further study. Challenges of adoption and future research on the topic are also discussed.
Int’l Pub. No. WO 2020118022 A1 discloses determining that a data is to be monitored at a particular electronic device for indications of an event. Multiple data sets representative of multiple input or sensor measurement collected at the particular electronic device are received. Multiple data sets using a trained machine-learning model are processed to generate a result corresponding to a predicted risk of the event. Multiple base location areas within which the particular electronic device has been frequently located is identified.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON A. SZUMNY whose telephone number is (303) 297-4376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-5.
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, Jason Dunham, can be reached at 571-272-8109. 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.
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights