DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's response, filed 13 March 2026, has been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 Status
Claims 1, 3-4, 9, and 11-13 are currently pending and under exam herein.
Claims 2, 5-8, and 10 have been cancelled herein.
Specification
Note: All references to the Specification herein pertain to the PG publication: US20220351867.
Claim Objections Withdrawn
In view of the amendments filed herein, the outstanding claim objections are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation under 112(f) Withdrawn
The claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) is withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)-Indefiniteness Withdrawn
The outstanding claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed herein.
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, 3-4, 9, and 11-13 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The instant rejection reflects the framework as outlined in the MPEP at 2106.04:
Framework with which to Evaluate Subject Matter Eligibility:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application (Prong Two); and
(2B) If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Framework Analysis as Pertains to the Instant Claims:
Step 1 Analysis: Are claims directed to process, machine, manufacture/composition of matter
With respect to step (1): yes, the claims are directed to a method and a system for dating a blood pool lying on a substrate.
Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis: Do claims recite abstract idea
With respect to step (2A)(1), the claims recite abstract ideas. The MPEP at 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as:
mathematical concepts, (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations);
certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices or principles, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and/or
mental processes (procedures for observing, evaluating, analyzing/ judging and organizing information).
With respect to the instant claims, under the (2A)(1) evaluation, the claims are found herein to recite abstract ideas that fall into the grouping of mental processes (in particular procedures for observing, analyzing and organizing information) and in conjunction with mathematical concepts (in particular mathematical relationships and formulas).
The claim steps to abstract ideas are as follows:
Claim 1:
determining, based on at the least one picture of the blood pool, a drying front of the blood pool at the given time,
determining, based on the drying front of the blood pool at the given time, and on a drying model, a time elapsed between the given time and an initial time at which the blood pool initiated a drying process on the substrate,
wherein determining the drying front of the blood pool at the given time comprises determining a wet perimeter of the blood pool at the given time, and
wherein the drying model correlates the time elapsed with a blood's diffusion coefficient measured for a plurality of predetermined environmental conditions and a plurality of initial blood pool conditions and performing a dating operation of the blood pool based on the time elapsed, wherein the dating operation identifies a date and a time that the blood pool was spilled on the substrate, wherein the drying model comprises a function correlating the mass variation of the blood pool with time with a wet area of the blood pool at the given time, wherein the drying model further comprises a function correlating the time elapsed between the given time and the initial time with the blood's diffusion coefficient, the blood's diffusion coefficient having a substantially constant value during the time elapsed between the given time and the initial time for the same environmental conditions, wherein the blood's diffusion coefficient is expressed according to the following equation: Dblood =KiLkL*0.5 (1)…Pt (1), wherein Dblood is the blood’s diffusion coefficient…wherein M is the molecular weight of water…wherein δm/δt is the mass variation of the blood pool with time….wherein kB is Boltzman’s constant…wherein h is the blood pool’s height…wherein α and β are correlation coefficients constant at the environmental conditions to which the blood pool is exposed at the given time (t)…wherein ρ is the blood’s volume weight, of which steps are interpreted under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) according to the Specification include mathematical calculation and therefore are abstract. See the Specification at least at [0027]-blood diffusion coefficient; [0061]- mass variation correlated with time with the wet area; [0076]-elapsed time; [0208]-values of diffusion on various surfaces; blood's diffusion coefficient by means of blood pool parameters including the blood pool's height which under the BRI of the claim in light of the Specification is a mathematical operation of utilizing correlation coefficients such as disclosed at [0061]; the drying model, which is expressly is directed to mathematical equation as recited; drying model comprises a function correlating…wherein area determination over time is a mathematical calculation; wherein said correlations are disclosed in the instant Specification as mathematical operations; the function correlating the mass variation of the blood pool, wherein said operations are mathematical formula as recited; performing a dating operation of the blood pool, wherein no specific operation is claimed and thus the claim is interpreted that the mathematical steps of the ”wherein” clauses would somehow be implemented for performing a dating operation and thus the “operation” is also mathematical.
Claim 3: determining the plurality of predetermined environmental conditions to which the blood pool is exposed at the given time, and an initial area of the blood pool corresponding to the area of the blood pool at the initial time, comparing the plurality of predetermined environmental conditions and the initial area with the sets of predetermined environmental and initial blood pool conditions, and determining a set of measured blood pool parameters comprising the blood's diffusion coefficient and the blood pool's height associated with the set of predetermined environmental and initial blood pool conditions matching with the plurality of predetermined environmental conditions and the initial area, wherein said steps are directed to mental operations under the BRI of “determining” parameters given the data as claimed and wherein in light of the Specification said operations are mathematical in nature (see Specification equations at least at [0061]; [0102]; [0141].
Claim 9: the time elapsed between the given time and the initial time is expressed according to the following equation…wherein said operations are mathematical formula as recited.
Claim 11: repeating steps as in claim 1 wherein said operations are abstract as recited above.
Claims 12 and 13 are directed to system claims of the method steps recited above at claim 1and thus also are directed to abstract idea elements as above.
Hence, the claims explicitly recite numerous elements that, individually and in combination, constitute abstract ideas.
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and determined herein to each cover performance either in the mind (calculations by hand or pen and paper) and performance by mathematical operation (calculation as per the recited specific equations in said claims). These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and providing certain results from the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations (Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in (Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind with pen and paper, and can include mathematical concepts.
Further, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation (see, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674: noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016): holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind" (see Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016): holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis: Integration to a Practical Application
Because the claims do recite judicial exceptions, direction under (2A)(2) provides that the claims must be examined further to determine whether they integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d). A claim can be said to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when it applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is performed by analyzing the additional elements of the claim to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim is said to fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
With respect to the instant recitations, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claims 1 and 12: (1) obtaining, using a camera, at least one picture of a blood pool lying on a substrate taken at a given time and (12) a camera; a computer processor; and a memory connected to the computer processor, wherein the memory comprises a program configured to perform a method…obtaining, using the camera, at least one picture of a blood pool lying on a substrate taken at a given time respectively.
Claim 3 and claim 13: providing a database comprising sets of environmental and initial blood pool conditions, which are operations that are data gathering for computations in the abstract idea.
Claim 4: environmental conditions comprise temperature and humidity… which are data directed to types as used for computations in the abstract idea.
Claims 1, 3-4, 9, and 11-13 are directed further to “computer” implementation and “systems” wherein said computer and system are generically recited.
With respect to the additional elements in the instant claims, those steps directed to data gathering perform functions of collecting the data needed to carry out the abstract idea. Data gathering does not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea, or on how the abstract idea is performed. Data gathering steps are not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(g).
The steps directed to additional non-abstract elements of “computer; system; camera” do not describe any specific computational steps by which the “computer parts” perform or carry out the abstract idea, nor do they provide any details of how specific structures of the computer, such as the computer-readable recording media, are used to implement these functions. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the abstract idea. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer, and therefore the claim does not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application. The courts have weighed in and consistently maintained that when, for example, a memory, display, processor, machine, etc… are recited so generically (i.e., no details are provided) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, and these limitations may be viewed as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B Analysis: Do Claims Provide an Inventive Concept
The claims are lastly evaluated using the (2B) analysis, wherein it is determined that because the claims recite abstract ideas, and do not integrate that abstract ideas into a practical application, the claims also lack a specific inventive concept. Applicant is reminded that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the inventive concept or the practical application and that the identification of whether the additional elements amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi).
With respect to the instant claims, the additional elements of data gathering described above do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As directed in the Berkheimer memorandum of 19 April 2018 and set forth in the MPEP, determinations of whether or not additional elements (or a combination of additional elements) may provide significantly more and/or an inventive concept rests in whether or not the additional elements (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Said assessment is made by a factual determination stemming from a conclusion that an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry, which is determined by either a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
With respect to the instant claims, the prior art discloses that steps of getting data pertaining to environment and humidity are data that one would routinely consider in assessment of blood analysis. For example, Brutin et al. (J. Fluid Mech. (2011), vol. 667, pp. 85–95) disclose experimental set-up wherein geometric characterization of a blood drop during evaporation is assessed that incorporates environmental conditions of temperature and pressure and humidity (page 86) As such, said steps, under 2B, encompass steps that are routine, well-understood and conventional in the art.
Further with respect to claims 1, 3-4, 9, and 11-13, the computer-related elements or the general purpose computer do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The specification generically recites the word “computer”. Said “systems”, as example, are recited as “smart phone” with a “camera” [0178]. The additional elements are set forth at such a high level of generality that they can be met by a general purpose computer or mobile device. Therefore, the computer components constitute no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(b)I-III).
The dependent claims have been analyzed with respect to step 2B and none of these claims provide a specific inventive concept, as they all fail to rise to the level of significantly more than the identified judicial exception.
For these reasons, the claims, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole, are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
1. Applicant states that, “amended independent claims 1 and 12 are patent eligible in view of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175 (1981) (hereinafter "Diehr"); and (2) assuming, arguendo, that the claims would recite a judicial exception, amended independent claim 1 and 12 integrate any proposed judicial exception into a practical application in the claims and recite patent eligible subject matter under Step 2A of the USPTO subject matter eligibility test”. Applicant specifically asserts with respect to Diehr that, “amended independent claim 1 requires (1) obtaining, using a camera, a picture of a blood pool lying on a substrate taken at a given time, (2) determining, based on a drying front of the blood pool at the given time and on a drying model, the time elapsed between the given time and an initial time at which the blood pool initiated a drying process on the substrate and (3) performing a dating operation of the blood pool based on the time elapsed, wherein the dating operation identifies a date and a time that the blood pool was spilled on the substrate, which are analogous to the rubber-molding process for opening a rubber-mold press as recited in claim 1 of Diehr. While claim 1 of Diehr "constantly determines [a] temperature of a mold" implicitly using sensors, amended independent claim 1 expressly obtains a picture of a blood pool lying on a substrate using a camera. The claimed drying model is similar to the Arrhenius equation that is used in claim 1 of Diehr. Thus, amended independent claim 1 recites various techniques that are similar to the automated process recited in claim 1 of Diehr that determines whether to open a rubber-mold press.
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. First, the instant claim step of “obtaining, using a camera, at least one picture of a blood pool lying on a substrate taken at a given time” is a step that occurs pre-solution in the instant claims and not, as seems to be argued, the practically applied step herein. As such, getting a picture by use of a camera is a step directed to data gathering in the instant claim, under the 2A, prong Two analysis. Furthermore, under 2B, it is well-known and conventional in the art to take pictures at a crime scene, for example, to establish evidence chains for analysis in blood pool techniques. This is demonstrated by the instant Specification at least at [0178] disclosing a general purpose camera on, for example, a mobile phone. Further, the prior art to Thanakiatkrai et al. (previously cited), for example, discloses age estimation of bloodstains using smartphone technology wherein bloodstains deposited on various substrates are imaged and photographed with a smartphone camera.
Second, with respect to Diehr, it is agreed that indeed the courts found the claims therein eligible because they provided a practical application that included the step of “opening the press” whereby said application integrated the recited judicial exception into a meaningful application. However, the instant claims are not analogous. The instant claims fail to provide any additional element that provides a practical application to the recited judicial exceptions. The use of a camera to get the data is not a step that provides this element. The camera is not itself changed by the steps that follow that are directed to mathematical determinations based on the picture that is taken. Said operations are more analogous to what the court found ineligible in, for example, Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, wherein the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity recited at a high level of generality. 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984-85.
2. Applicant refers to the USPTO Example 46, specifically claim 3 therein. Applicant adds that, “similar to the automated sorting gate and information from animal sensors in the
Livestock Example, amended independent claim 1 recites (a) obtaining, using a camera, a picture of a blood pool lying on a substrate taken at a given time, (b) determining, based on the at least one picture of the blood pool, the drying front of the blood pool at the given time, and (c) performing a dating operation of the blood pool based on the time elapsed, wherein the dating operation identifies a date and a time that the blood pool was spilled on the substrate. Thus, performing a dating operation that identifies when blood is spilled on a substrate as required by amended claim 1 is analogous to "automatically operating the sorting gate" in the Livestock Example. Moreover, the animal-specific information that is obtained from an animal sensor from the Livestock Example is similar to obtaining a picture of a blood pool lying on a substrate using a camera, as required by amended independent claim 1.
Accordingly, the claimed dating operation and obtaining a picture of a blood pool using a camera are "meaningful limitations" similar to the automated "sorting gate" limitation recited in claim 3 of the Livestock Example. Likewise, MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I) clearly states "[a]pplying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception" (emphasis added) is an integration of an alleged judicial exception into a practical application”.
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. The step directed to “performing a dating operation” is a step that is a judicial exception in the instant claim and not one that is in addition, as said step is directed to performing said operation using mathematical operations as discussed in the above rejection. The operation of the camera is not changed by performing a dating operation, rather the computer (cell phone) or a human when given the appropriate data, may perform said operations as claimed using mathematical formulae.
Applicant is kindly reminded herein that for a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B. The step herein directed to “performing a dating operation” is itself the judicial exception and cannot therefore be said to provide the integration herein.
Further to the “sorting gate” in Example 46, it is not agreed that the instant claims are analogous because the instant claims contain not physical manifestation of changing the operation of the camera by way of “sensors” or input etc…. This is different than sensor signals fed back to a sorting gate that would operate according to the data analysis output to direct the “sorting”.
It is suggested that if the step of “performing a dating operation of the blood pool…wherein the dating operation identifies a date and time that the blood pool was spilled on the substrate” is intended to be on that is “in addition” and to provide a practical application herein, that the claims be amended to include specific integration of the recited judicial exceptions into the claimed step, whereby it is clear that the judicial exceptions are employed in the operation of performing the dating operation. It is further suggested that if this is intended to be a method by which imagining is improved, then the claim be amended to reflect the actual process of image manipulation. It is not abundantly clear that any of this “data” is actually measured, for example or from where the data are derived, i.e. a database or how it may be used, i.e. comparison to knowns, for establishing a dating operation. It is noted that claim 3 includes the database and is closer to eligibility, save for the tie between those parameters and implementation in a dating operation as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Withdrawn
In view of the claim amendments filed herein where claims 5 and 7 and 8 are incorporated into independent claims 1 and 12, the outstanding rejections under 35 USC 103 are withdrawn and the claim found to be free from the prior art as indicated in the Non-final Office Action dated 15 December 2025 at page 23 stating, “with respect to claim 3, 5, 8-10 and 13, the claims appear to be free from the prior art as recited above because the prior art fails to teach or fairly suggest the database comprising sets of predetermined environmental and initial blood pool conditions, as in claims 3 and 12. Further the prior art does not appear to teach or fairly suggest the specific determined equations for the blood diffusion coefficient (claim 5) or the equations for mass variation as it specifically relates to the blood pool with time with wet area as in claims 8-10”.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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.
Inquiries
Papers related to this application may be submitted to Technical Center 1600 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Technical Center 1600 via the PTO Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notices published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (November 15, 1988), 1156 OG 61 (November 16, 1993), and 1157 OG 94 (December 28, 1993) (See 37 CFR § 1.6(d)). The Central Fax Center Number is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lori A. Clow, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0715. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 11:00AM to 9:00PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached on (571) 272-9047.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to (571) 272-0547.
Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO’s PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public.
/Lori A. Clow/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights