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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/01/2025 has been entered.
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 9-10 and 13-16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims 9-10 and 13-16 recite a processor configured to: capturing a digital image comprising a crown portion of a capillary in a fingernail bed of a subject; analyzing the digital image comprising the crown portion of the capillary in the subject; predicting a presence or absence of a blood abnormality in the subject on the basis of the analysis of information of the image; measuring an apex width of the crown portion of the capillary on the basis of the image, the apex width comprising a length of a straight line representing a chord of a loop outer wall of an apex portion of the crown portion of the capillary, the apex width being tangent to an apex of a loop inner wall of the crown portion of the capillary; excluding any measured apex width having a value of less than 20 µm from further analysis; comparing a value of the measured apex width with a predetermined threshold value; and predicting a high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level when the value of apex width is greater than the threshold value, and predicting a normal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level when the value of apex width is smaller than the threshold value; as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but presumable recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than presumably reciting “processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example “capturing a digital image comprising a crown portion of a capillary in a fingernail bed of a subject” in the context of this claim encompasses simple data gathering of capturing a digital image which can be done by the user, “Analyzing the digital image comprising the crown portion of the capillary in the subject; predicting a presence or absence of a blood abnormality in the subject on the basis of the analysis of information of the image” can be achieved by the user viewing the captured digital image and analyzing within the users own mind. The user could manually also “measuring an apex width of the crown portion of the capillary on the basis of the image, the apex width comprising a length of a straight line representing a chord of a loop outer wall of an apex portion of the crown portion of the capillary, the apex width being tangent to an apex of a loop inner wall of the crown portion of the capillary; excluding any measured apex width having a value of less than 20 µm from further analysis; comparing a value of the measured apex width with a predetermined threshold value; and predicting a high low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level when the value of apex width is greater than the threshold value, and predicting a normal low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level when the value of apex width is smaller than the threshold value” by measuring the digital image taken and doing a simple analysis depending on the users measurement, as presented in Fig. 2 measuring the apex width of the digital image does not require any specific process or algorithms thus it can be done by the user.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the imitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites three additional element – using a processor to perform the above noted steps. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic processing function of acquiring and analyzing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a head mounted display. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to perform the determining steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims are not patent eligible.
As for the depending claim(s), they are also rejected under 35 USC 101 at least for the similar
reasons noted above as they are directed to abstract ideas and does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN MALDONADO whose telephone number is 703-756-1421. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am-4:00 pm PST M-Th 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. 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.
/Steven Maldonado/
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797