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 recitation of the mobile device indicating where to take the second image so that the first and second images are with a predetermined range of similarity is defined in the as-filed specification in para [0038]-[0039] as using the mobile device so that the first and second images are taken at similar local positions with respect to at least one environmental feature, which environmental feature provides a reference element and/or reference characteristic
in a field of view of the camera.
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 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “determining a second local position before taking a second image of at least part of the test field,” “calculating the similarity between the first and second local positions,” “determining whether the similarity is within a predetermined range,” and “determining an analytical measurement result value based on the first image and the second image.”
The limitation of determining a second local position before taking a second image of at least part of the test field, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, i.e. a mental step, but for the recitation of the spatial information of the test field with respect to the at least one environmental feature, which enables mentally determining the second local position.
Similarly, the limitation of calculating the similarity between the first and second local positions, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, i.e. a mental step, 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 similarity between the first and second local positions, and determining whether the similarity is within a predetermined range, and determining an analytical measurement result value based on the first image and the second image.
Similarly, the limitation of determining whether the similarity is within a predetermined range, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, i.e., a mental step. For example, the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally evaluating a difference between positions.
Similarly, the limitation of determining an analytical measurement result value based on the first image and the second image, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, i.e., a mental step, but for the recitation of generic components. For example, the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally assigning a value to a calculated result. Accordingly, the steps above are evaluations and/or observations that can be done mentally. Thus, 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 are not beyond what is well understood, routine and conventional within the prior art, including “recording in a memory of the mobile device a first image of at least part of the a test field on the optical test strip, “recording in the memory of the mobile device a first local position at the time of recording the first image, wherein the first local position comprises spatial information of the test field with respect to at least one environmental feature in a field of view of the camera,” and “recording in the memory of the mobile device the second image of at least part of the test field having after the sample is applied.” Such recording of images using a mobile device is merely directed to conventional data collection as noted in US2014/0154789 to Shyam et al. (cited by applicant). Thus, claim 1 is not deemed patent eligible.
Claims 2, 3 and 5-15 are rejected as being dependent on independent claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the claimed invention is directed to patent eligibility based on the claimed invention reciting a solution to a known technological problem.
However, as noted above the claimed manner of “calculating the similarity between the first and second local positions,” “determining whether the similarity is within a predetermined range,” and “determining an analytical measurement result value based on the first image and the second image” are directed to abstract ideas – mental processes.
MPEP 2106.05(a) (II) notes that the courts have also found that improvements in technology may demonstrate patent eligibility when they are not directed to an abstract idea.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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