DETAILED ACTION
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 1-13 are currently pending and under exam herein.
Priority
The instant Application is the National Stage filing of PCT/EP2020/066804 filed 17 June 2020 and claiming the benefit of foreign priority to EP19305772.6 filed 17 June 2019. Each of claims 1-13 herein enjoy the priority to the EFD of 17 June 2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 7 January 2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has therefore been considered. A signed copy of the IDS is included with this Office Action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 16 December 2021 have been accepted.
Specification
Note: All references to the Specification herein pertain to the PG publication: US20220351867.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 12, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of said claims is missing the appropriate article before the first word of the preamble. Claim 1 should be amended to read: “A computer A system The system .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitations are:
Claim 12:
means for determining, based on at least one picture of a blood pool lying on a substrate taken at a given time, the drying front of the blood pool at the given time wherein the instant Specification provides that said “means” comprises image processing software that performs image processing of a picture of the blood pool and that may be installed on a smartphone or a tablet. The imaging software is selected from the group comprising ImageJ, Matlab code, Python code [0096]. Drying front calculations are determined by wet perimeter calculation as described in the Specification at least at [0047]; [0050]; [0061].
means for determining, based on a drying model and on the determined drying front of the blood pool at the given time, the time elapsed between the given time and an initial time at which the blood pool initiated a drying process on the substrate, wherein the Specification discloses time elapsed equations by means of image assessment and models based on image software at least at [0062]; [0076]
wherein the means for determining the drying front of the blood pool at the given time determines the wet perimeter of the blood pool at the given time
wherein the means for determining the time elapsed between the given time and the initial time 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 wherein said determinations are as per the above and include image software as ImageJ, Matlab code, Python code and wherein said calculations are disclosed.
Claim 13:
the means for determining the drying front of the blood pool at the given time comprises an image processing software wherein the Specification discloses said software as ImageJ, Matlab code and Python code (as above).
the means for determining the time elapsed between the given time and the initial time comprises a calculation software wherein the calculation software is disclosed as part of the image software (ImageJ, Matlab code, Python code) [0182] and further is described at [0206].
Because this claim limitation are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)-Indefiniteness
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.
Claim 1 recites, “determining, based on the determined drying front of the blood pool at the given time, and on a drying model…wherein the drying model correlated the time elapsed…” which fails to provide clarity on the drying model itself. The claim includes the purpose of the “drying model” which is to “correlate the time elapsed” but fails to include the parameters of said model. As such, the “model” is unclear with respect to the determining based on a drying front and a drying model herein. Clarification is requested. It is noted that claim 8 (including claim 7) is clear with respect to the drying model that comprises a function correlating mass variation of the blood pool with time with the wet area of the blood pool expressed by the equation as claimed (claims 7 and 8).
Claim 1 is not clear with respect to the step of “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 condition”, as there is no active step of measureing said parameters and there is no diffusion measurement previously recited in the claim. Clarification is requested. It is noted that claim 5 is clear with respect to the drying model that includes a function correlating time elapsed between a given time and initial time with blood diffusion coefficient that has a constant value during elapsed time and initial time for the same environmental conditions and wherein the bloods diffusion coefficient is expressed according to the claimed equation.
Claim 12 is rejected and suffers the same issues as above that pertain to claim 1 and is also unclear for the same reasons.
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 1-13 are 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 least one picture of a blood pool lying on a substrate taken at a given time, the drying front of the blood pool at the given time,
determining, based on the determined 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,
wherein determining the drying front of the blood pool at the given time comprises determining the 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 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
Claim 2: the drying model correlates the time elapsed with a 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].
Claim 3: determining the 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 determined environmental conditions and the determined 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 determined environmental conditions and the determined 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 5: the drying model 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 is the wet parameter, wherein the claim expressly is directed to mathematical equation as recited.
Claim 6: determining the drying front of the blood pool at the given time further comprises determining the wet area of the blood pool at the given time, wherein area determination over time is a mathematical calculation.
Claim 7: the drying model comprises a function correlating the mass variation of the blood pool with time with the wet area of the blood pool at the given time wherein said correlations are disclosed in the instant Specification as mathematical operations (see claim 8 as well).
Claim 8: wherein the function correlating the mass variation of the blood pool with time with the wet area of the blood pool at the given time is expressed according to the following equation…ρ is the blood’s volume weight wherein said operations are mathematical formula as recited.
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 10: correlation coefficients are further defined such that the equation is further limited (abstract idea).
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 claims 1 and 2 and 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:
Claim 3 and claim 12: 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 1-13 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; and system” 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 1-13, 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.
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 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thanakiatkrai et al. (Forensic Science International (2013) Vol. 233:288-297; IDS reference) in view of Smith et al. (Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science (2018) Vol. 36:78-83; First available online on 5 February 2018), as evidenced by or in addition to Bou Zeid et al. (Colloids and Surfaces A: Physiochem. Eng. Aspects (2013) Vol. 430:1-7) and Sobac et al. (Colloids and Surfaces A: Physiochem. Eng. Aspects (2014) Vol. 448:34-44).
Instant claim 1 is directed to:
Computer-implemented method for dating a blood pool lying on a substrate, comprising):
determining, based on at least one picture of a blood pool lying on a substrate taken at a given time, the drying front of the blood pool at the given time
determining, based on the determined 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,
wherein determining the drying front of the blood pool at the given time comprises determining the 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.
With respect to claim 1, the art to Thanakiatkrai et al. discloses age estimation of bloodstains using smartphone technology wherein bloodstains deposited on various substrates are imaged and photographed with a smartphone camera. Color values were assessed for estimation of time since deposition of said blood stain and age predictions assessed using Random Forest analysis (abstract). Thanakiatkrai et al. further assess environmental factors that include exposure to light, temperature, and humidity which have a role in estimation of time since deposition of bloodstains (page 288-289, top).
Thanakiatkrai et al. do not specifically assess drying fronts of the blood pool which in include wet perimeter, as claimed herein. However, the prior art to Smith et al. disclose variables such as ambient temperature, humidity, and pressure, wettability and roughness of the surface, time elapsed since blood deposition, volume and blood's clotting response (page 78, col. 2). Smith et al. further include the importance of drying dynamics that includes these factors (page 79, col. 1). Smith et al. further include that drying patterns observed follow Marangoni convection inside the droplet [which] induces the transport of particles towards the rim, and thus favours evaporation at the triple line. This corresponds to a convective evaporation. Later, once the particles concentration reaches a critical point, gelation occurs, and evaporation occurs through the porous media. The transition between the purely convective evaporation regime and the gelation regime appears always at 65% of the total drying time. Thus, controlling evaporative rate by evaporating drops of blood at different RH levels impacts strongly the wettability properties and the final pattern of drying drops of blood. The influence of RH on the final pattern of a dried drop of human blood is of huge importance for biomedical applications where drops of blood are drying in an open atmosphere (page 79, col. 2). Smith et al. include that said observations are based on the research of Bou Zeid et al. which is relied on as further evidence to the teachings as disclosed in Smith et al., wherein Bou Zeid et al. disclose further that different patterns observed during an evaporating colloidal drop could exhibit a ring-like structure [13], or more complex features such as a network of polygons [14], hexagonal arrays [15] or a uniform deposit [16]. When a small drop of dilute colloidal suspension is dried on a wetted solid substrate, colloidal particles are accumulated at the contact line and a typical drying pattern, the so called “coffee ring”, remains. The reason for the formation of such a pattern is the contact line pinning due to the particles suspended in the liquid and the movement of particles and liquid together toward the rim to replenish the liquid that evaporates much faster near the contact line [13]. In fact, the phenomenon of pattern formation in drying drops depends on several parameters such as the physicochemical properties of the solid substrate [17], the spreading behavior [18], the internal flow field (Marangoni convection [14]), the drying conditions (temperature [19], relative humidity of the evaporation environment (RH) [20], air velocity [21]), the presence of surfactant [22,23] and the type of the particles (size [24], chemical composition [25]) (pages 1-2). Bou Zeid et al. further include that atmospheric pressure influences evaporation rate as does relative humidity (RH) and are important factor for analysis of blood drop deposition assessment (page 2, col. 2-page 3). Further with respect to diffusion and wetting patterns of blood, Smith et al. refer to methods as in Sobac et al. wherein evaporation of blood at a particular angle revealed the formation of complex morphology and wherein a practical application of pattern formation in drying blood must include understanding of mechanisms involving spreading, wetting, evaporation heat and mass transfer and cracks formation. Turning to Sobac et al. further reveals that this includes drying dynamic physics with diffusion modeling (page 38).
With respect to claim 12, the prior art discloses the means for achieving said operations as described above in that the prior art also includes image analysis using cameras and calculations as the means for said operations. As such, claim 12 is also rejected for the same reasons as above.
With respect to claim 2, the prior art to Bou Zeid et al. at page 3 discloses monitoring the during process of blood over time with that includes parameters such as height of the drop (col. 1).
With respect to claim 4, the prior art to Thanakiatkrai et al. further assess environmental factors that include exposure to light, temperature, and humidity which have a role in estimation of time since deposition of bloodstains (page 288-289, top).
With respect to claim 6, the prior art to Smith et al. referring to methods as in Sobac et al. disclose diffusion and wetting patterns of blood, wherein evaporation of blood at a particular angle revealed the formation of complex morphology and wherein a practical application of pattern formation in drying blood must include understanding of mechanisms involving spreading, wetting, evaporation heat and mass transfer and cracks formation (page 38-Sobac et al.).
With respect to claim 7, Sobac et al. disclose determinations of mass with respect to wet area (page 42, col. 1).
As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the calculations as provided by Smith et al. and as evidenced by or in addition to Bou Zeid et al. with the teachings of Thanakiatkrai et al., as disclosures in Smith et al. include that the two main interface transfers are first the wetting, and then the evaporation. While wetting accounts for the equilibrium of the various applied forces at the triple line (meeting point of blood, surface, and air), evaporation describes the phase change taking place after as recalled by the review of Sefiane et al. of 2011 [26]. These processes are dependent on variables such as ambient temperature, humidity, and pressure, wettability and roughness of the surface, time elapsed since blood deposition, volume and blood's clotting response. Indeed, when blood is outside the body, its properties change rapidly due to platelet activation leading to the coagulation cascade response. The importance of understanding this problem for forensic science and biomedical applications, appears to be crucial since it is used as a tool to obtain evidence in crime scene reconstitution or in medical diagnosis (page 78, col. 2). Smith et al. further speak to the utilization of images in analysis (Figure 1; page 80, col. 2). Smith et al. further provide that applications of said technology to forensic sciences include automated and 3D scanning techniques that could face scrutiny due to lack of scientific validity and thus more robust methodology is needed. As such, one would have been motivated to include imaging using mobile devices or other imaging means with the specific inclusion of the detailed parameters and to repeat said steps for accuracy (claim 11) as disclosed by Smith et al. as evidenced or further disclosed in Bou Zeid et al. and Sobac et al.
Prior Art Made of Record
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
1. Bou Zeid et al. (Colloids and Surfaces A: Physiochem. Eng. Aspects (2014) Vol. 456:273-285).
2. Milionis et al. (Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces (2018) Vol. 166:218-223).
3. Shin et al. (Sensors and Actuators B (2017) Vol. 243:221-225).
4. Trybala et al. (Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science (2018) Vol. 36:84-89).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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.
E-mail Communications Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting following form via EFS-Web or Central Fax (571-273-8300): PTO/SB/439. Applicant is encouraged to do so as early in prosecution as possible, so as to facilitate communication during examination.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
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 12:00PM to 10:00PM 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