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 Interpretation
The term “similar” in the expression “similar locations” is deemed definite since applicant’s specification explicitly defines this term. The as-filed specification in para [0045] discloses:
“the term “similar” as used herein and as specifically used in the context of the local positions of the first and second images is a broad term and is to be given its ordinary and customary meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art and is not to be limited to a special or customized meaning. The term specifically may refer, without limitation, to the fact that the first and second images are taken at local positions which fulfill at least one predetermined or determinable similarity criterion. Thus, as an example, the local positions of the first and second images may be identical at least within a predetermined range of tolerance, such as a predetermined range of tolerance stored in at least one data storage device of the mobile device.”
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the mobile device indicates where to take the second image so that the first and second images are taken at similar local positions with respect to at least one environmental feature that has a fixed and/or unchanged position between the capturing of the first and second images”, “determining a first local position when taking the first image and determining a second local position before or when taking the second image,”, “comparing the first and second local positions in order to determine whether the first and second images are taken at similar local positions with respect to the at least one environmental feature;” and “determining an analytical measurement result value by using the first image and the second image.”
The limitation of determining a first local position when taking the first image and determining a second local position before or when taking the second image is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components. That is, other than reciting “the mobile device” and “the camera”, nothing in the claim precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the context of this claim encompasses the user calculating the position of the mobile device.
Similarly, the limitation of comparing the first and second local positions in order to determine whether the first and second images are taken at similar local positions with respect to the at least one environmental feature, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the context of this claim encompasses the user evaluating a difference between positions.
Similarly, the limitation of determining an analytical measurement result value by using the first image and the second image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic components. For example, the context of this claim encompasses the user manually assigning a value to a calculated result. Accordingly, the steps above are evaluations and/or observations that can be done mentally, claim 1 recites abstract ideas.
Further, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim only recites “indicating”, “determining”, and “comparing” steps. The courts have indicated that gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result is not sufficient to show an improvement to technology. MPEP 2106.05(a)(II) (discussing TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto., LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 612-13 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible based on the above reasoning and rationale.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the other elements of the claims other than the abstract idea and determine are not beyond what is well understood, routine and conventional within the prior art, including “providing a dry optical test strip…”, “using the camera to capture a first image…”, “applying a sample of body fluid to the test field”, and “using the camera to capture a second image”. Thus, claim 1 is not deemed patent eligible.
Claims 2-15 are rejected as being dependent on independent claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL S. GZYBOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3487. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at 571-270-3638. 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.
/M.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights