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 action is in response to the amendment filed 12/05/2025. Claims 40, 42-48, 50-59 are pending in this action. Claims 40, 42-48, and 50-59 have been amended.
Applicants’ response to the 112(f) interpretation set forth in the 6/6/25 action has been considered.
The 112(a) and 112(b) rejection set forth the 6/6/25 action are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 40, 42-48, 50-59 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 40, 42-48, 51-59 recites a term, “a single scale.” Applicants’ disclosure describes the term, “a scale,” however the examiner was unable to find the term, “a single scale.” A “single scale” is not the same as “a scale.
In Fig 2, applicant discloses element 101 which is disposed between two fundus images, 103R and 103L. Applicant is advised to reflect the element 101 in the way it appears in figures and described in the applicants disclosure. If the term, “single scale” is directed to the functionalities of element 101, applicant has to clarify the claim “single scale” with the support of original specification.
Claims 42-48, and 50-55, 57-59 are rejected for incorporating the deficiencies of their respective base/independent claims.
For applicants convenience examiner is citing some paragraphs from disclosure, that may help to properly define the role of “single scale” in the claims.
Applicant is also invited to contact the examiner for additional feedback of that helps.
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 40, 42-48, 50-59 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 40 is directed to a machine or apparatus, and belongs to a statutory class.
Claim 40 recites an information processing apparatus comprising:
a receiver for receiving from a database, a display displaying images, and a detector detecting a user operation on one of the image.
The receiver, display and detector are generic components of a computer system , the receiver can be programs to gather data, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. The display displays the data that is gathered, and the detector can detect an action such as a user moving a mouse and/or using touch-screen display to move data with finger.
All the above steps are therefore insignificant extra-solution and/or post-solution activities.
The remaining elements of claims 40 are as follows:
image analysis data of an eye which includes image data of right and left eyes of a person, a symptom of eye disease detected on the image data of the right and left eyes, respectively, and severity of the symptom of the eye disease on the right and left eyes, respectively;
the images of the right and left eyes, the symptom of the eye disease for the right and left eyes, the severity of the symptom of the eye disease for the right and left eyes, a single scale being arranged between the right eye image and the left eye image, the single scale indicating a plurality of degrees of progress related to the symptom aligned in increasing order of the plurality of degrees of progress, the single scale used as a measure of the symptom severity of the eye disease for the right and left eyes, respectively, a first marker corresponding to the left eye, a second marker corresponding to the right eye, the single scale disposed between the first marker and the second marker; and
on one of the image of the right eye, the image of the left eye, the single scale, the first marker, and the second marker,
wherein a first item other than a second item is changed, in conjunction with the user operation including a change in the second item detected by the detector, the second item including one of the image of the right eye, the image of the left eye, the single scale, the first marker, and the second marker, the first item including the other of the image of the right eye, the image of the left eye, the single scale, the first marker, and the second marker.
The above elements are mere data or data per se, as there no meaningful functionalities associated with them.
Step 2A Prong One:
The steps of receiving, displaying and detecting are mental steps to be performed by a computer. The remaining elements, by being data and with no functionalities associated amount to mental process.
Step 2A Prong Two:
The additional elements in claim 40 are receiver, display and detector, which do not practically integrate the mental steps or mental processes because they have been recited at a high level of generality. Since there no functionalities are recited in the claim, claim 40 presents data in a display. For instance, the “markers” in claim 40 are recited as objects and the functionalities of the marker are absent in the claim. There are no additional elements other than the receiver, display and detector etc., that are directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or are beyond generally linking the judicial exceptions of mental steps to a particular technological environment and/or leading to an improvement to another technology. Claims 40 therefore does not integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.A. states “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. Examples of claims that recite mental processes include: a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step 2B
Considering all the elements recited in the claim individually and in combination as a whole, the additional elements of receiver, display, and detector are generic computer components are used for performing insignificant extra-solution activities of data gathering and displaying data. However, these elements are not recited meaningfully as such they would be beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Claim 40 therefore does not amount to an inventive concept.
Claims 42-47 further limits claim 40. Relevant claim limitations are highlighted below for convenience.
Claim 42. The information processing apparatus according to claim 40, wherein: the receiver receives present image analysis data of the eye which includes a set of present image data of the eye, a present symptom of eye disease detected on the present image of the eye, present severity of the symptom of the eye disease, past image analysis data of the eye which includes a set of past image data, a past symptom of the eye disease detected on the past image of the eye, and past severity of the symptom of the eye disease; the display displays the present image, the present symptom of the eye disease, and the severity of the symptom of the eye disease; and in response to the detector detecting the user operation, the display displays the past image of the eye, the past symptom of the eye disease, and the past severity of the symptom of the eye disease based on the user operation detected by the detector.
43. (Currently Amended) The information processing apparatus according to claim 42, wherein the past image analysis data includes plural sets of past image data of the eye, past symptom of the eye disease detected on the past image data and past severity of the symptom of the eye disease, each of the plural sets of past image data, past symptom of the eye disease and past severity of the symptom of the eye disease being obtained at different times, wherein in response to the detector detecting the user operation, the display displays at least one of a past image of the eye or past severity of the symptom from among the plural sets of past image data and past severity of the symptom based on the user operation detected by the detector.
Claim 44. (Currently Amended) The information processing apparatus according to claim 43, wherein: the detector detects the user operation including selection of a severity of the symptom of the eye disease on the single scale, and the display displays a past image of the eye from among the plural sets of past image analysis data, the severity of the symptom associated with the selected past image data corresponding to the severity of the symptom selected on the single scale based on the user operation detected by the detector.
Claim 45. (Currently Amended) The information processing apparatus according to claim 40, wherein: in response to the detector detecting the user operation on the single scale, the display selection of severity of the symptom of the eye disease on the single scale; and the receiver receives predicted image data of the eye, severity of the symptoms on the predicted image data corresponding to the severity of the symptom selected on the single scale.
Claim 46. (Previously Presented) The information processing apparatus according to claim 45, wherein the predicted image data is associated with increased symptom of the eye disease and generated based upon the image data of the eye and the symptom of the eye disease detected on the image data.
Claim 47. (Previously Presented) The information processing apparatus according to claim 45, wherein the predicted image data is associated with no symptom of the eye disease and generated based upon the image data of the eye and the symptom of the eye disease detected on the image data.
None of the additional limitations underlined in the claims above meaningfully link the judicial exceptions and/or insignificant extra-solution activities to a particular technological environment. Instead, these limitations are mere data describing previous data.
Claims 42-47 are therefore do not integrate the judicial exceptions into practical application, nor do they amount to an inventive concepts. The rationale applied to claim 40 is also applied to them.
Claim 48 is essentially the same claim 40 except that claim 40 a processor determining severity of the symptom of the eye disease based upon the image analysis data. The processor recited in claim 48 is a generic processor that is to be programmed for the receiver, display and detector recited in the body of the claim. The remaining elements of claim 48 are rejected under the same rationale applied to claim 40 above.
Claims 50-55 are dependent on claim 48, and are rejected under the same rationale applied to claims 42-47.
Claim 56 is essentially the same claim 40 except that claim 40 recites a first information processing apparatus to receive analysis data and a second information processing apparatus for the first information processing apparatus, and a processor. This is as if, the displaying of data being done on another information processing apparatus. Claim 56 is rejected under the same rationale applied to claim 40.
Claims 57-59 are dependent on claim 56, and are rejected under the same rationale applied to claims 42-47. All the limitations in claims 57-59 have been discussed above.
Claims 40, 42-48, 50-59 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as not being patent eligible and for being directed to judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 40, 42-48, 50-59 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Sugaya et al. (20200065967 A1 published 2020-02-27) in view of Babu ( US PG-PUB 20180182476 A1 published 2018-06-28]
With respect to claim 40, Sugaya teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
a receiver (Sugaya, Fig 3, 20) receiving, from a database ( Sugaya, par. [0041], image analysis data of an eye which includes image data of right and left eyes of a person (page 4, par. [0056], the images disclosed can be the claimed right eye and left eye images, a symptom (Sugaya, page 3, [0043]) of eye disease detected on the image data of the right and left eyes, respectively, and severity of the symptom of the eye disease (Sugaya, par. [0058-0059], determines the severity of a disease in percentage and/or based scores exceeding a predetermined value; percentage is equated with the level of severity) on the right and left eyes, discloses cusses respectively;
a display displaying (Sugaya, Fig. 6) the images of the right and left eyes (200-220, 300-310 can be right and/or left eyes), the symptom (Par. [0056], glaucoma in 310 is a symptom)], of the eye disease for the right and left eyes, the severity of the symptom of the eye disease for the right and left eyes, a single scale being arranged between the right eye image and the left eye image, the single scale indicating a plurality of degrees of progress related to the symptom aligned in increasing order of the plurality of degrees of progress, the single scale used as a measure of the symptom severity of the eye disease for the right and left eyes, respectively, the single scale disposed between the two panes (Fig 6, 100 and 110 are considered two different panes of the display); [The “single scale” is interpreted as a scale; see the 112(b) rejection above this action.]
and
a detector detecting a user operation (Sugaya, Fig 4, S10-S14 are considered to be user operations) on one of the image of the right eye, the image of the left eye, the single scale, the first marker, and the second marker,
wherein the display displays (Fig 6, 100 and 110 are considered two different panes of the display )a first item (200-220) other than a second item (300-310) is changed ([par. 0056], Fig 6, 310 shows change leading to the development of glaucoma), in conjunction with the user operation including a change in the second item detected by the detector, the second item including one of the image of the right eye, the image of the left eye, the single scale, the first marker, and the second marker, the first item including the other of the image of the right eye, the image of the left eye, the single scale, the first marker, and the second marker.
With respect to claim 40, Sugaya does not explicitly use the term scale that indicates the degree of progress of a disease. Sugaya, however, teaches the degree of similarity between at least two sets of images (see par. [0056]), use of a predetermined values to measure the degree of image similarity. Sugaya uses variations of image features to determine risks associated with progression of disease. Sugaya further predicts the effect of future progress of the disease, and calculates the risks as the percentage of effect due to disease progression. See Sugaya, [0058]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to consider the “percentage calculation” feature of Sugaya as a scale because Sugaya teaches the use of a predetermined value for percentage calculations. See Sugaya [0058]-[0059].
With respect 40, Sugaya does not explicitly teach “a first item other than a second item is changed, in conjunction with the user operation including a change in the second item detected by the detector, the first marker, and the second marker” as recited in claim 40. Examiner however notes that in Fig 6, Sugaya shows that a change to elements 300-310 is made in conjunction with the change occurred in elements 200, 210 and 220. The dictionary meaning of “in conjunction with” in here is that two sets of images 200-220, and 300-310 experience change together. Sugaya implies the “change” as claimed. Sugaya does not explicitly indicate the use of claimed “markers.”
[Examiner notes that the meaning of claim limitation, “the single scale disposed between the first marker and the second marker,” is that there are two markers associated with the scale. No functionalities of the markers such as “moving operations” regarding the markers have been recited in the claims.]
With respect to claim 40, Babu, in a prior art reference directed to the same field of endeavor, i.e., processing of fundus images, provides (Babu, p2, par. [0020]) user with an interface to evaluate fundus images and allows the users to select their desired options for mapping clinical findings to recommendations for curing eye diseases, when the users prepare medical reports. Babu also allows users to execute users operations by using touch-screen display and fingers. The touch-screen based selection of options in Babu is equated with the use of “marker” as recited in the claims.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to incorporate the touch-screen options of Babu in Sugaya because Babu identifies the problem of time intensive and laborious process of preparing medical examination reports (Babu, par. 0003] and also recognizes the need for reducing errors in eye report preparation (Babu, par. [0006]). The person of ordinary skill would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Babu in Sugaya because the combined system would help the users to prepare error-free reports in a timely manner. Babu, in par [0021], provides motivation as the system “is advantageous because 1) it reduces time and effort for a reviewer … 2) enables the reviewer to quickly generate a medical report….3) allows even a novice reviewer to make a report for a patient since the chances of error or inaccuracies associated with such an automated process is minimal, and 4) requires minimum or no changes by an expert or eye specialist/doctor when reviewing or finalizing the report prepared by the reviewer.
Claim 42-48, 50-59 are rejected under the same rationale applied to claim 40 above.
With respect to claim 42. (Currently Amended) The information processing apparatus according to claim 40, (wherein: the receiver receives present image analysis data of the eye which includes a set of present image data of the eye, a present symptom of eye disease detected on the present image of the eye, present severity of the symptom of the eye disease, specifically past image analysis data of the eye which includes a set of past image data, a past symptom of the eye disease detected on the past image of the eye, and past severity of the symptom of the eye disease; the display displays the present image, the present symptom of the eye disease, and the severity of the symptom of the eye disease; and in response to the detector detecting the user operation, the display displays the past image of the eye, the past symptom of the eye disease, and the past severity of the symptom of the eye disease based on the user operation detected by the detector, Sugaya teaches processing, analyzing and displaying “past images based on time series.” Par. [0056]. Since Sugaya teaches processing of multiple sets of images based on time series, it teaches analyzing past images.
With respect to claim 43. (Currently Amended) The information processing apparatus according to claim 42, wherein the past image analysis data includes plural sets of past image data of the eye, past symptom of the eye disease detected on the past image data and past severity of the symptom of the eye disease, each of the plural sets of past image data, past symptom of the eye disease and past severity of the symptom of the eye disease being obtained at different times, wherein in response to the detector detecting the user operation, the display displays at least one of a past image of the eye or past severity of the symptom 41 of Subaya performs learns repeatedly from data and finds a pattern from the learning. See Subaya, par. [0044].
With respect to 43. (Currently Amended) The information processing apparatus according to claim 42, wherein the past image analysis data includes plural sets of past image data of the eye, past symptom of the eye disease detected on the past image data and past severity of the symptom of the eye disease, each of the plural sets of past image data, past symptom of the eye disease and past severity of the symptom of the eye disease being obtained at different times, wherein in response to the detector detecting the user operation, the display i-sdisplays at least one of a past image of the eye or past severity of the symptom Par. [0056]) teaches processing of multiple sets of images based on time series, it teaches analyzing past images.
With respect to claim 44. (Currently Amended) The information processing apparatus according to claim 43, wherein: the detector detects the user operation including selection of a severity of the symptom of the eye disease on the single scale, and the display displays a past image of the eye from among the plural sets of past image analysis data, the severity of the symptom associated with the selected past image data corresponding to the severity of the symptom selected on the single scale based on the user operation detected by the detector, Sugaya (par. [0058-0059], determines the severity of a disease in percentage and/or based scores exceeding a predetermined value; percentage is equated with the level of severity) on the right and left eyes.
With respect to claim 45. (Currently Amended) The information processing apparatus according to claim 40, wherein: in response to the detector detecting the user operation on the single scale, the display enables selection of severity of the symptom of the eye disease on the single scale; and the receiver receives predicted image data of the eye, severity of the symptoms on the predicted image data corresponding to the severity of the symptom selected on the single scale.
With respect to claim 46. (Previously Presented) The information processing apparatus according to claim 45, wherein the predicted image data is associated with increased symptom of the eye disease and generated based upon the image data of the eye and the symptom of the eye disease detected on the image data, and specifically, Subaya teaches a receiver receiving predicted image data of the eye (The diagnosis module 43 may diagnose the effect of disease progression affected with the diagnosed disease now or in the future in percentage.
With respect to claim 47. (Previously Presented) The information processing apparatus according to claim 45, wherein the predicted image data is associated with no symptom of the eye disease and generated based upon the image data of the eye and the symptom of the eye disease detected on the image data, Subaya teaches about finding patterns in images and then initiate the prediction process (see par. [0044]).
Claim 48 is essentially the same claim 40 except that claim 40 a processor determining severity of the symptom of the eye disease based upon the image analysis data. The processor recited in claim 48 is a generic processor that is to be programmed for the receiver, display and detector recited in the body of the claim. As to the processor, Subuya teaches a computer (10) in Fig 3. The remaining elements of claim 48 are rejected under the same rationale applied to claim 40 above.
Claims 50-55 are dependent on claim 48, and are rejected under the same rationale applied to claims 42-47.
Claim 56 is essentially the same claim 40 except that claim 40 recites a first information processing apparatus to receive analysis data and a second information processing apparatus for the first information processing apparatus, and a processor. This is as if, the displaying of data being done on another information processing apparatus. The system of Subaya can be modified to incorporate another computer to execute the displaying operations and the reconfiguration would not require any changes to the functionalities image acquiring, analyzing and diagnosing. Since Subuya teaches a computer (10) in Fig 3 and is open to addition of another information processing apparatus, claim 56 is rejected under the same rationale applied to claim 40.
Claims 57-59 are dependent on claim 56, and are rejected under the same rationale applied to claims 42-47. All the limitations in claims 57-59 have been discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 40, 42-48, 50-59 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOSAIN T ALAM whose telephone number is (571)272-3978. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 8:00 - 4:30.
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.
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.
/HOSAIN T ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2132