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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 21-30) in the reply filed on 11/4/25 is acknowledged.
Upon a search of the prior art and reconsideration, the restriction requirement as set forth in the Office action mailed on 9/11/25 is hereby withdrawn, and all claims are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability. Both groups have been searched and considered, and allowable subject matter has been identified (see further below).
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 21: “the method performed by one or more processors…” (in the preamble in lines 2-3, which performs the recited function in the body of the claim.)
Claim 21: “the method performed by….of an electronic device…” (in the preamble in lines 2-3, which performs the recited function in the body of the claim.)
Claim 21: “the method performed by…..a server…” (in the preamble in lines 2-3, which performs the recited function in the body of the claim.)
Claim 26: “wherein the electronic device automatically captures image data…” in line 1.
Claim 29: “wherein the method is performed at the electronic device” in line 2.
Claim 30: “wherein the step of acquiring the image data….is performed by the electronic device” in lines 1-2.
Claim 30: “a server” in lines 4, 5, and 6, performing the recited functions throughout the claim.
Claim 31: “executed by one or more processors” in line 2.
Claim 31: “an electronic device” in lines 2 and 3, performing the recited functions throughout the claim.
Claim 32: “the one or more processors arranged to cause….” (in lines 1-2)
Claim 33: “A server arranged to determine…wherein the server is configured to perform the following steps” (in the preamble, emphasis added).
Claim 33: “an image….captured by a electronic device” in line 2.
Claim 34: “the server is further arranged to perform the step of…” (in lines 1-2).
Claim 34: “the server is configured to perform….” (in line 3).
Claim 36: “an electronic device arranged to capture…” (in line 2);
“a server arranged to determine…” (in line 5).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The electronic devices mentioned above are interpreted to encompass a smartphone or a computer, as disclosed in the specification such as in paragraphs 0008, 0046, 0048, and 0526 in the specification as disclosed in Applicant’s PreGrantPublication US 20230324378.
The processors mentioned above are disclosed in the specification such as in paragraphs 0090 and 0099. While the specification does not disclose structures or give examples of a processor, it is Examiner’s understanding that the processor encompasses a computer, that is, a conventional computer as understood by one skilled in the art.
The servers mentioned above are disclosed in the specification such as in paragraphs 0079 and 0085, as well as elsewhere in the specification. While the specification does not disclose the structures or give examples of a server, it is Examiner’s understanding that the server encompasses a computer and communication components as understood by one skilled in the art.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 21, lines 19-21, recites “providing an output, wherein the output is based upon whether the indicator of the bodily condition has interacted with the first colour change pad of the one or more colour change pads”. (Emphasis added).
It is not clear what Applicant means by “the output is based upon whether the indicator….has interacted….” The limitation is vague since “based upon” could mean that the output will be provided depending upon whether the indicator has interacted or it could mean that the output provides a result that indicates whether or not the indicator has interacted with the first colour change pad. Clarification is requested. Examiner notes that it appears that Applicant intends for the limitations to mean providing an output wherein the output indicates whether or not the indicator has interacted with the first colour change pad. (See Applicant’s specification, for example, in paragraphs 0284, 0316, and 0322-0324 of the Pre-Grant Publication US 20230324378). For examination purposes, this interpretation will be given to the claims. Clarification however is requested to make the claim more clear.
Similarly, independent claim 33, in lines 19-21, recites the same limitations and lacks clarity for the same reasons. Clarification is requested.
Likewise, independent claim 36, in lines 23-25, recites the same limitations and lacks clarity for the same reasons. Clarification is requested.
The limitation of a “server” is recited in the following:
claim 21, line 3;
claim 30, lines 4, 5, and 6;
claim 33, line 3;
claim 34, line 1;
claim 36, lines 3, 5, and 6.
It is not clear in the claim nor specification whether a “server” in intended by Applicant to refer to a computer (i.e., processor) or a program, or whether it encompasses both.
While a server is understood by many to mean a device, it is also understood in the art to technically mean a program. Moreover, Applicant’s specification does not clarify whether a “server” as disclosed by Applicant refers to a computer (i.e., processor), or a program, or to encompass both. Applicant’s specification appears vague on this issue. For example, the same functions (method or steps) recited in independent claims 21, 31, 33, and 36 are disclosed in multiple places as being performed by a non-transitory computer-readable medium (see, for example, para. 0090 of the PreGrant Publication US 20230324378; and see, for example, also claim 31), by an application (para. 0403), and a server (see, for example, para. 0079 and the claims as indicated above). It appears that Applicant intends for a “server” to refer to a computer (i.e., processor), rather than a non-transitory computer-readable medium or application, and for examination purposes will be interpreted as such. However clarification is requested.
Claim 31 recites: “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions thereon that when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device cause the electronic device to perform the method of claim 21”.
However, claim 31 depends from claim 21, and claim 21, in lines 2-3 recites that the method is “performed by one or more processors of an electronic device and/or a server”. Therefore, it is not clear in claim 31 whether it is the processor of the electronic device, or the server, or the non-transitory computer-readable medium that is configured to perform the recited functions. Therefore claim 31 lacks clarity.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the camera" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears that claim 23 should depend on claim 22, which would provide antecedent basis for “the camera” in claim 23.
The remaining claims are rejected since they depend from one of the claims above without remedying the vagueness set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 33, and 36 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 22-32, 34 and 35 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. It was not found in the prior art search a teaching or suggestion for a method comprising the steps of, or a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions to perform the steps of, or a server configured to perform the steps of, the following combination:
determining two opposite edges of a first colour change pad of the one or more colour change pads from an image data, wherein determining the two opposite edges of the first colour change pad comprises determining discontinuities in brightness between the first colour change pad and a surrounding region indicative of the interface between the first colour change pad and the surrounding region;
determining a location of the first colour change pad in the image data as being confined between the two edges;
sampling colour data of a sub-region of the first colour change pad in the image data based upon the determined location;
determining, based upon the sampled colour data, whether an indicator of a bodily condition has interacted with the first colour change pad of the one or more colour change pads; and
providing an output, wherein the output is based upon [interpreted to mean indicates] whether the indicator of the bodily condition has interacted with the first colour change pad of the one or more colour change pads.
[Close prior art is cited below in the “Conclusion” section.]
It was also not found in the prior art search a teaching or suggestion for the advantages of such combination of limitations, such as those disclosed by Applicant in paragraphs 0048, 0056, and 0426 of the PreGrant Publication US 20230324378.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CA 2857424 (Polwart). Polwart discloses the following (see throughout the reference). The software may convert some or all of the image to a black and white image (binary array) to accelerate processing, for example in determining the location and edges of the region of interest. Having identified the relevant portions of the image and calculated any necessary rotational correction the software may then revert to some or all of the original image file, for more detailed processing. The software may automatically reject images which are of inadequate quality to yield useful results.
With the bounds of the test strip or housing defined by criteria such as contrast, the region of interest containing the result can be identified from the geometric properties of the particular test or housing. Image information obtained from close to the boundaries of the test strip or result window may be discarded as artefacts are most commonly observed in these areas. Averaging across the region of interest it is possible to significantly reduce the noise on the data and obtain more robust results. Some measurement of error may be obtained by averaging across multiple "sub zones" within the region of interest.
The portable device may be configured to display a guide or template overlay showing the outline of the reagent and/or one or more regions of interest. The feedback may be in the form of: a change of appearance, such as colour, of the guide or template overlay; or an audio or tactile indication that an image has been acquired.
[However, Polwart does not disclose:
determining two opposite edges of a first colour change pad of the one or more colour change pads from an image data, wherein determining the two opposite edges of the first colour change pad comprises determining discontinuities in brightness between the first colour change pad and a surrounding region indicative of the interface between the first colour change pad and the surrounding region;
determining a location of the first colour change pad in the image data as being confined between the two edges; and
sampling colour data of a sub-region of the first colour change pad in the image data based upon the determined location.]
US 20190086408 (Pulitzer, cited in the IDS of 1/13/25) discloses a test strip and a mobile device having a camera, capturing an image of the test strip and multiple test lines (paras. 26 and 39) wherein the user performs an alignment (paras. 56, 57).
[However Pulitzer does not disclose:
determining two opposite edges of a first colour change pad of the one or more colour change pads from an image data, wherein determining the two opposite edges of the first colour change pad comprises determining discontinuities in brightness between the first colour change pad and a surrounding region indicative of the interface between the first colour change pad and the surrounding region; and
determining a location of the first colour change pad in the image data as being confined between the two edges.]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ann Montgomery whose telephone number is (571)272-0894. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5:30 PM PST.
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, Greg Emch can be reached at 571-272-8149. 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.
/Ann Montgomery/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1678