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 .
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following limitations:
extracting one or more features from the one or more pill images (feature extraction in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper);
classifying the one or more features into one or more classifications based on a decision tree having a plurality of nodes and a plurality of leafs, each node using a classification algorithm, and each node pointing directly or indirectly to one or more of the plurality of leafs uniquely describing a classification that includes a pill shape, a pill text, or a pill color, wherein the classifying includes generating a first decision with the first classification algorithm based on first variables that include only two variables (Mental process of judgement with the aid of pen and paper, a decision tree in nothing more than a mental process itself to have a guideline/rule of making judgement or evaluation decision based on received information, the claim as recites basically makes a decision on an image using a set of rules), and
generating a second decision with a second classification algorithm of the classification algorithms based on second variables that include only two variables that are different from the first variables (Mental process of judgement with the aid of pen and paper, a decision tree in nothing more than a mental process itself to have a guideline/rule of making judgement or evaluation decision based on received information, the claim as recites basically makes a decision on an image using a set of rules); and
generating a scatter plot for a first classification algorithm of the classification algorithms that illustrates a decision boundary of the first classification algorithm (mental process of evaluation with the aid of pen and paper, drafting a scatter plot in observation of data points is a mental process with the aid of pen and paper).
The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements:
1. (Currently Amended) A pill shape classification system, comprising:; at least one processor; and at least one memory having a set of instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, causes the pill shape classification system to perform operations including (amounts to a generic computer component to perform a computer function as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)).
an imaging device to obtain one or more pill images of a pill to be processed (extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g) under 2a prong 2);
Accordingly, the 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.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
1. (Currently Amended) A pill shape classification system, comprising:; at least one processor; and at least one memory having a set of instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, causes the pill shape classification system to perform operations including (amounts to a generic computer component to perform a computer function as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)).
an imaging device to obtain one or more pill images of a pill to be processed (extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g) under 2a prong 2 and well, understood, routine and conventional activity of data gathering under 2B MPEP 2106.05(d));
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
The pill classification system of claim 1, wherein the classification algorithms are support vector machines (SVMs) (amounts to a generic computer component to perform a computer function as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
The pill classification system of claim 1, wherein one or more of the classification algorithms is a neural network (amounts to a generic computer component to perform a computer function as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
The pill classification system of claim 1, wherein respective leafs of the decision tree identify pill shapes as one of round, triangle, rectangle, tear, semi- circle, capsule, oval, trapezoid, diamond, square, pentagon, or hexagon (amounts to generally linking the abstract ideas to the technological environment or field of use as discussed in in MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
The pill classification system of claim 1, wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, causes the pill shape classification system to perform operations including comparing a shape of the pill to be processed with a shape of a reference pill in a database and, if upon determining the pill to be processed differs greatly from the reference pill in the database (shape comparison in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper);
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
providing a user with an indication that the pill to be processed is a fake pill (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of presentation of offer or statistics under MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
The pill classification system of claim 1, wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the system, cause the pill shape classification system to perform operations including outputting the one or more classifications to a display device (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of presentation of offer or statistics under MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
The pill classification system of claim 1, wherein the one or more classifications includes a pill shape of the pill to be processed, a pill text of the pill to be processed and a pill color of the pill to be processed (amounts to generally linking the abstract ideas to the technological environment or field of use as discussed in in MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
The pill classification system of claim 1, wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the pill shape classification system to perform operations including identifying a name and dosage of the pill to be processed based on the one or more classifications (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of presentation of offer or statistics under MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9-15 are method claims having similar limitation as claims 1-8 and are rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 16-20 are non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims having similar limitation as claims 1-5 and are rejected under the same rationale. The additional elements in claim 16 is At least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a set of instructions, which when executed by a computing device, causes the computing device to perform operations including(amounts to performing generic function of execution of stored instructions (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into practical application and are not sufficient to amount to significant more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are an abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-12, 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordeiro et al (“Pill Image Classification using Machine Learning” 2019) in view of Cheong et al (“Support Vector Machines with Binary Tree Architecture for Multi-Class Classification” 2004) and further in view of Lad et al (“High-Throughput Shape Classification Using Support Vector Machine” 2016) and further in view of Bioch et al (“Bivariate Decision Trees” Oct 1999)
1. Cordeiro disclose a pill shape classification system (See e.g. title), comprising:
an imaging device to obtain one or more pill images of a pill to be processed (See e.g. abstract on pill images. See e.g. section 1 on software tool to help users accurately identify prescription/pill. Examiner Note: “to be processed” is not further defined, reads on any processing, such as classification, identification, pills to be taken by patient, etc);
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
at least one processor; and at least one memory having a set of instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, causes the pill shape classification system to perform operation including (See e.g. section IIIA):
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
extracting one of more features from the one or more pill images (See e.g. section 1 on extract shape and color features); and
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
classifying the one or more features into one or more classifications based on
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
While Cordeiro disclose using SVM and multilayer perceptron for pill image classification, Cordeiro fails to disclose a decision tree having a plurality of nodes and a plurality of leafs, each node using a classification algorithm, and each node pointing directly or indirectly to one or more of the plurality of leafs uniquely describing a classification; and generate a scatter plot for a first classification algorithm of the classification algorithms that illustrates a decision boundary of the respective classification algorithm.
However, Cheong disclose a decision tree having a plurality of nodes and a plurality of leafs, each node using a classification algorithm, and each node pointing directly or indirectly to one or more of the plurality of leafs uniquely describing a classification (See e.g. abstract and Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image8.png
200
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
200
400
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the classification system of Cordeiro to incorporate SVM decision tree architecture of Cheong.
Given the advantage of SVM decision tree architecture of Cheong (i.e. computational efficiency. See abstract), one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
Furthermore, Lad disclose shape classification using SVM (thereby in the same field of endeavor) and explicitly disclose generate a scatter plot for a first classification algorithm of the classification algorithms that illustrates a decision boundary of the respective classification algorithm (See e.g. Fig. 8 and pg. 855).
PNG
media_image10.png
200
400
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
200
400
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the classification system of Cordeiro+ Cheong to incorporate shape classification using SVM of Lad where a scatter plot is generated for a first classification algorithm of the classification algorithms that illustrates a decision boundary of the respective classification algorithm.
Given the advantage of more effective use of data (See Lad’s pg. 857 or section IV), one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
PNG
media_image12.png
200
400
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Bioch disclose wherein the classifying includes generating a first decision with the first classification algorithm based on first variables that include only two variables (See abstract on using at most two variables); generating a second decision with a second classification algorithm of the classification algorithms based on second variables that include only two variables that are different from the first variables (See section 3.1 on combining x1 and x2, that is different from x3).
PNG
media_image13.png
200
400
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
200
400
media_image14.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the classification system of Cordeiro+ Cheong+lad to incorporate bivariate decision tree of Bioch.
Given the advantage of binvariate tree (See abstract), one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
PNG
media_image15.png
200
400
media_image15.png
Greyscale
2. Cordeiro disclose the pill classification system of claim 1, wherein the classification algorithms are support vector machines (SVMs) (see e.g. abstract).
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
3. Cordeiro disclose the pill classification system of claim 1, wherein one or more of the classification algorithms is a neural network (see e.g. abstract on NLM. See also section IIE that MLP is a neural network).
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
200
400
media_image16.png
Greyscale
4. Cordeiro disclose the pill classification system of claim 1, wherein
PNG
media_image17.png
200
400
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Cheong disclose a decision tree having a plurality of nodes and a plurality of leafs (see claim 1 and Fig. 1). The modified teaching disclose the claimed limitation.
6. Cordeiro disclose the pill classification system of claim 1, wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the system, cause the pill shape classification system to output the one or more classifications to a display device (See e.g. table III and Fig.3 on shape classification output for various classifiers).
PNG
media_image18.png
200
400
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
200
400
media_image19.png
Greyscale
7. Cordeiro disclose the pill classification system of claim 1, wherein the one or more classifications includes a pill shape of the pill to be processed (See e.g. table III and Fig.3 on shape classification output for various classifiers), a pill text of the pill to be processed and a pill color of the pill to be processed.
PNG
media_image19.png
200
400
media_image19.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
200
400
media_image18.png
Greyscale
8. Cordeiro disclose the pill classification system of claim 1, wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, cause the pill shape classification system to identify a name and dosage of the pill to be processed based on the one or more classifications (inherent. Each pill inherently has a name and dosage associated with it. See also section 1 on identifying known prescription pill.)
PNG
media_image20.png
200
400
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Claims 9-12, 14-19 are drawn to claims above and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim(s) 5, 13, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cordeiro et al (“Pill Image Classification using Machine Learning” 2019) in view of Cheong et al (“Support Vector Machines with Binary Tree Architecture for Multi-Class Classification” 2004) and Lad et al (“High-Throughput Shape Classification Using Support Vector Machine” 2016) in view of Bioch et al (“Bivariate Decision Trees” Oct 1999), and further in view of Zhang et al (US 2018/0260665 A1)
5. Cordeiro disclose the pill classification system of claim 1, wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, causes the pill shape classification system to compare a shape of the pill to be processed with a shape of the reference pill in a database (See e.g. section 1 on using software tool to compare again NLM dataset) and,
PNG
media_image21.png
200
400
media_image21.png
Greyscale
While Cordeiro disclose medication safety is a critical issue and use software tool to help user identify pills, Cordeiro fails to explicitly disclose fake pill notification to user.
However, Zhang disclose deep learning to identify pill image (see abstract) and further disclose, wherein the set of instructions, which when executed by the at least one processor, causes the pill shape classification system to compare a shape of the pill to be processed with a shape of a reference pill in a database (See e.g. Fig. 11-126) and, if upon determining the pill to be processed differs greatly from the reference pill in the database, provides a user with an indication that the pill to be processed is a fake pill (See e.g. Fig. 11-128. See also [0067] At step 128, possible identities of the subject pill and (optionally) corresponding information about the possible identities may be displayed via a graphical user interface (GUI) (e.g., the GUI 44 of FIG. 3; the GUI shown on the screen of system 100 of FIG. 10). [0116] The inventors have recognized that the novel aspects of MobileDeepPill that make it advantageous for use in automated, mobile pill recognition can now also have applicability in different applications, to recognize and identify objects other than pills. For example, a small footprint, self-contained, multi-CNN image analysis architecture as described above for MobileDeepPill can also be trained to identify other objects that have known attributes (such as shape, color, size, imprints, designs, etc.) such as currency, security badges, event passes or tickets, equipment components, inventory, keys, batteries, known illicit drugs or other contraband, and the like. And, the results of the analysis may include identification of the object and/or detection of whether, for example, the objects are counterfeit, OEM, etc. Similarly, such an image analysis architecture could be used for medical image identification and classification).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to extend the pill classification and recognition system of Cordeiro+Cheong to incorporate fake/counterfeit pill identification of Zhang.
Given the fact that Pill classification and recognition are crucial tasks in preventing the misuse of medication (See Cordeiro’s abstract), one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this obvious modification.
PNG
media_image22.png
200
400
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Claims 13 and 20 are drawn to claim 5 and are rejected for the same reason.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Migut et al (“Visual Exploration of Classification Models for Risk Assessment” 2010) disclose visual exploration of classification models, including scatter plot. See Fig. 2a.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUT WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm 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, Abdullah Al Kawsar can be reached on 5712703169. 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.
/LUT WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights