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 1-15 are pending and are under examination.
Claims 1-15 are rejected.
Claims 1-10 and 12-15 are objected to.
Priority
The instant application claims priority as 371 filing of Application No. PCT/EP2021/076423, filed on September 26, 2021, which claims the benefit of US Provisional Application No. 63/089,179, filed on October 8, 2020. The claims to priority are acknowledged. As such, the effective filing date for claims 1-15 is October 8, 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 04/06/2023 follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered in full. A signed copy of the list of references cited from this IDS is included with this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings filed 04/06/2023 are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 and 12-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7, should recite “model[[,]];”.
Claim 2, line 1, should recite “[[A]] The method of claim 1,”. Claims 3-10 recite the same issue with their preambles and should be amended similarly to claim 2, as described in the previous sentence.
Claim 12, line 13, should recite “protocols; and”.
Claim 12, line 10, should recite “model[[,]];”.
Claim 12, line 17, should recite “protocols; and”.
Claim 13, line 1, should recite “[[A]] The system of claim 12,”. Claims 14-15 recite the same issue with their preambles and should be amended similarly to claim 13, as described in the previous sentence.
Claim 13, line 5, should recite “at least [[part]] portion of”.
Claim 14, lines 2-3, should recite something like “arrangement for being coupled to and used by a personalized digital model” to correct the grammar of the phrase.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
35 USC 112(f)
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.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 limitations are below:
Claims 12 and 14 recite a primary processing arrangement adapted to receive first and second inputs, perform a comparison procedure, and configure an authentication protocol setting.
Claim 13 recites a digital model section comprising a data storage arrangement configured to receive model inputs and simulate a physical state of an anatomy based on the inputs.
Claim 14 recites a further processing arrangement adapted to determine input data requirements.
Because these claim limitation) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. These limitations are interpreted as computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations, for which the associated structure is hardware and algorithms for performing the claimed function (MPEP § 2181.II.B). Below are the hardware and algorithms in the disclosure:
Primary processing arrangement: specification pg. 23 indicates that the hardware for the primary processing arrangement is a generic computer processor (specification pg. 23). Receiving data is a coextensive function of a processor. However, performing a comparison procedure and configuring an authentication protocol setting both require an algorithm. Specification pg. 7, 14 and 17-18 either reiterate the claimed function or recite a one-step algorithm, both of which are not sufficient structure for computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations.
Digital model section: specification pages 7, 12, 19 and 23 and Figs 3-5 disclose the data storage arrangement but do not clearly associate hardware or an algorithm that perform the claimed functions.
Further processing arrangement: specification pg. 7 reiterates the claimed function but does not clearly associate a hardware or algorithm.
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
35 USC 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims dependent from a rejected claim are also rejected, unless otherwise noted.
Claims 12-14 and fail to comply with the written description requirement because they do not adequately link or associate adequately described particular structure, material, or acts to perform the function recited in the claim identified to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre- AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. As discussed in Claim Interpretation, claims 12-14 recite functions for a primary/further processing arrangement and a digital model section that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Neither the specification nor the drawings clearly associated hardware or sufficient algorithms that performs the claimed functions. Thus, in accordance with MPEP § 2181.IV, the disclosure does not provide written description support for the primary/further processing arrangement and a digital model section.
35 USC 112(b)
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 1-15 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.
Claims dependent from a rejected claim are also rejected, unless otherwise noted.
Claim 1, line 15, recites “the digital model input data requirements”. It is unclear if this refers to both of “input data requirements of a personalized digital model” in lines 2-3 and “a set of input medical data requirements of the digital model” in lines 5-6, or refers to just one or the other. Clarify which input data requirements are being referenced.
Claim 2, line 4, recites “the configuring comprises”. It is unclear which configuring is referenced because claim 1, lines 1-2, recites “configuring settings of a biometric authentication function” and claim 1, line 14, recites “configuring an authentication protocol setting”. Clarify which configuring step is referenced.
Claim 3, line 4, recites “the authentication protocols”. It is unclear which authentical protocols are referenced because claim 3, line 2, recites “a set of multiple biometric authentication protocols” and claim 1, lines 8-9, recites “one or more biometric authentication protocols”. Clarify which authentication protocols are referenced.
Claim 4, line 3, recites the relative term “required”, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “required” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of what constitutes “required” compared to “unrequired” sensing data is unclear.
Claim 4, line 4, recites “the digital model input data”. It is unclear if this refers to claim 1, lines 1-2, of “input data requirements of a personalized digital model”, in claim 1, lines 5-6, “a first input indicative of a set of input medical data requirements of the digital model”, or in claim 1, lines 8-9, of “a second input indicative of one or more biometrics authentication protocols.” Clarify to what the recitation refers.
Claim 4, line 4, recites “the biometric data”. It is unclear which biometric data is referenced because claim 1, lines 10-11, recites “each authentication protocol is associated with a set of biometric input data requirements”. Clarify which biometric data of which protocol is referenced.
Claim 4, line 5, recites “the sensing data requirements” which lacks antecedent basis. Although claim 4, line 3, recites “required sensing data”, there is no mention of “sensing data requirements”. Provide antecedent basis or clarify to what the recitation refers.
Claim 5, lines 2-3, recites twice the relative term “suitable”, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “suitable” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of what constitutes “suitable” compared to “unsuitable” sensing modality and ranges is unclear.
Claim 10, line 5, recites “the one or more relevant future times” which lacks antecedent basis. Although claim 10 recites “one or more future time”, there is no mention of “relevant”. Provide antecedent basis or clarify to what the recitation refers.
Claim 10, line 5, recites the relative term “relevant”, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relevant” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Because relevant is a relative term, the metes and bounds of what constitutes a relevant future time is unclear.
Claim 11, line 3, recites “a method in accordance with claim 1”. The phrase “in accordance” makes it unclear whether claim 11 requires every step of claim 1 or only certain, unspecified steps. To overcome this rejection, amend to “[[a]] the method of claim 1”.
Claim 12, line 5, recites “input/output”. It’s unclear whether “/” means “or”, “and”, or “and/or”. Clarify the meaning of “/”.
Claim 12, line 20, recites “the digital model input data requirements”. It is unclear if this refers to both of “input data requirements of a personalized digital model” in lines 2-3 and “a set of input medical data requirements of the digital model” in lines 8-9, or refers to just one or the other. Clarify which input data requirements are referenced.
Claim 13, line 5, recites “the inputs”. It is unclear which inputs are referenced because claim 12 recites “input data requirements”, “a first input”, and “a second input” while claim 13 recites “one or more model inputs”. For prosecution, claim 13 is interpreted to refer to claim 13, line 4, recitation of “one or more model inputs”. Clarify which inputs are being referenced.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Claim 13, line 4, recites a broad limitation of “one or more model inputs”. Claim 13, line 5, then recites “the inputs”, which is a narrower limitation of the broad limitation. The claims are indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claim. To overcome this rejection, amend the narrower limitation to “the one or more model inputs”.
Claim 14, line 3, recites “the input data requirements for the digital model”. It is unclear which of the following in claim 12 this recitation refers to: lines 2-3 “input data requirements of a personalized digital model”, lines 8-9 “input medical data requirements of the digital model”, or both. Clarify which input data requirements are referenced.
Claim 14, line 4, recites “the model”. It is unclear which model is referenced because both claim 1, lines 2-3, and claim 14, lines 2-3, recite “a personalized digital model”. Clarify which model is referenced.
Claims 12-14 recite limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as discussed in Claim Interpretation. The written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and fails to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification merely reiterates the claimed functions of the primary/further processing arrangement and the digital model section and does not recite a sequence of steps that constitute an algorithm. Therefore, claims 12-14 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For examination purposes, any combination of hardware and algorithms that perform the claimed functions of the primary/further processing arrangement and the digital model section will read on these claim limitations.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Non-Statutory Subject Matter
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is directed to non-statutory subject matter (Step 1: NO). Claim 11 recites a computer program product comprising computer code without reciting any structural component and therefore equates to “software per se”, which is not a statutory category of invention (MPEP 2106.03.I).
Claim 11 can be amended to recite statutory subject matter by storing the program in non-volatile memory as recited on specification page 28. Regardless, this amendment still results in a rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for recitation of a judicial exception without significantly more. In the interest of compact prosecution, claim 11 is analyzed below under 35 U.S.C. 101 as if it recited statutory subject matter.
Statutory Subject Matter
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.
Step 1:
Step 1 asks whether the claims recite statutory subject matter. In the instant case, claims 1-11 recite a method and claims 12-15 recite a system. As such, these claims recite statutory subject matter (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims that recite statutory subject matter are analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 1 to determine if they recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomena. The instant claims recite the following limitations that equate to one or more categories of judicial exception:
Claims 1 and 11 recite “obtaining a first input indicative of a set of input medical data requirements of the digital model for obtaining, based on running simulations on the digital model, a desired set of output information from the model, obtaining a second input indicative of one or more biometric authentication protocols being executable by the computing device for performing the biometric authentication function on the computing device, wherein each authentication protocol is associated with a set of biometric input data requirements; comparing the input medical data requirements of the digital model with the biometric input data requirements of the one or more authentication protocols; configuring an authentication protocol setting of the computing device based on the digital model input data requirements and based on said comparison.”
Claim 2 recites “obtaining an indication of a scheduled authentication event comprising scheduled implementation of an authentication protocol, or comprises obtaining an indication of a default authentication protocol setting of the computing device, and wherein the configuring comprises altering the scheduled or default authentication protocol, or settings thereof.”
Claim 3 recites “wherein the second input is indicative of a set of multiple biometric authentication protocols being selectively executable by the computing device, and wherein the configuring the authentication protocol setting comprises selecting one of the authentication protocols.”
Claim 4 recites “wherein the first and second inputs include, or the method comprises determining, required sensing data to be obtained by the computing device to provide, or to be used in providing, the digital model input data and the biometric data, and the comparing comprises comparing the sensing data requirements.”
Claim 5 recites “wherein the sensing data requirements include at least one suitable sensing modality, and optionally suitable ranges for one or more sensing modality acquisition parameters.”
Claim 6 recites “wherein configuring the authentication protocol setting includes: selecting one of the one or more authentication protocols and/or configuring one or more sensing modality acquisition parameters.”
Claim 7 recites “wherein the authentication protocol setting is configured so as to achieve at least a partial match between sensing data requirements of an authentication protocol implemented according to the configured setting and those of the medical input data requirements.”
Claim 10 recites “wherein the first input includes an indication of one or more sets of predicted future data input requirements of the model at one or more future times.”
Claim 12 recites “receive a first input indicative of a set of input medical data requirements of the digital model for obtaining, based on running simulations on the digital model, a desired set of output information from the model, receive a second input indicative of one or more biometric authentication protocols being executable by the computing device for performing the biometric authentication function on the computing device, wherein each authentication protocol is associated with a set of biometric input data requirements; perform a comparison procedure between the input medical data requirements of the digital model and the biometric input data requirements of the one or more authentication protocols; configure an authentication protocol setting of the computing device based on the digital model input data requirements and based on said comparison.”
Claim 13 recites “receive one or more model inputs and to simulate an actual physical state of said at least part of the anatomy based on the inputs, and for generating one or more model outputs relating to a current or future state of the anatomy;”
Claim 14 recites “… determine the input data requirements for the digital model based at least in part on a latest set of model outputs from the model.”
Limitations reciting a mental process.
Claims 1-7 and 10-14 contain limitations recited at such a high level of generality that they equate to a mental process because they are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), which the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind. The paragraphs below discuss the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the limitations in these claims that recite a mental process.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, obtaining/receiving first input of medical data requirements includes collecting data such as acceptable values for different acquisition parameters as well as claim 10 (pg. 23 of spec). Obtaining/receiving second input data of biometric authentication protocols includes collecting information for an algorithm (pg. 17 of spec). Comparing medical and biometric data requirements includes analyzing data. Configuring an authentical protocol setting includes making a selection, as described in claim 6.
Claim 2 includes gathering information and writing down on pen and paper an algorithm representing the default authentication protocol. Claim 3 requires a mental process of making a selection and gathering information. Claims 4-5 include determining what data should be obtained by a computing device and comparing sensing data requirements includes mental evaluations. Claim 7 includes altering parameters of an algorithm on pen and paper. Claim 13 includes obtaining data and simulating an anatomy by determining if patient has an arrythmia or structural issues derived from an ECG. Claim 14 requires analyzing data to determine parameters.
As such, claims 1-15 recite an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1: YES).
Additional Elements:
Once limitations have been identified that recite a judicial exception, the claims are evaluated for additional elements. The additional elements are then analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 2 then Step 2B. The instant claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1 recites “A computer-implemented method for configuring settings of a biometric authentication function of a computing device based on input data requirements of a personalized digital model of at least a portion of an anatomy of a patient, the method comprising:”
Claims 1-12 recite a computer implemented method.
Claim 8 recites “issuing a control instruction to cause the computing device to implement the authentication protocol setting on at least one future authentication event.”
Claim 9 recites “wherein the computing device is a mobile computing device.”
Claim 10 recites “wherein configuring the authentication protocol setting comprises issuing a control instruction to cause the computing device to schedule implementation of the authentication protocol setting at the one or more relevant future times.”
Claim 11 recites “A computer program product comprising computer program code, the computer program code being executable on a processor or computer to cause the processor or computer to perform a method in accordance with claim 1.”
Claim 12 recites “A system for use in configuring settings of a biometric authentication function of a computing device based on input data requirements of a personalized digital model (412) of at least a portion of an anatomy of a patient, the system comprising: a primary processing arrangement having an input/output for receiving and outputting data, and the primary processing arrangement adapted to:”
Claims 11-15 recite a system comprising a processing arrangement.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the system further comprises a digital model section, comprising: a data storage arrangement, storing a digital model of at least a portion of an anatomy of the patient, configured to …”
Claim 14 recites “wherein the system includes a further processing arrangement for coupling in use to a personalized digital model, and adapted to … and wherein the primary processing arrangement receives the first input from the further processing arrangement”
Claim 15 recites “wherein the system includes the computing device, the computing device is a portable computing device, and wherein the primary processing arrangement is integrated in the portable computing device.”
These above recited additional elements are analyzed below under both Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B:
Step 2A, Prong 2:
Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not (Step 2A, Prong 2). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that reflect an improvement to a computer, technology, or technical field (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.5(a)), require a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)), implement the recited judicial exception with a particular machine that is integral to the claim (MPEP § 2106.05(b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP § 2106.05(c)), nor provide some other meaningful limitation (MPEP § 2106.05(e)). Rather, the claims include limitations that equate to an equivalent of the words “apply it” and/or to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)), insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and field of use limitations (MPEP § 2106.05(h)). The paragraphs below discuss the additional elements recited above in the instant claims.
Claims 1-15 recite a computer implemented method, a system comprising a primary/further processing arrangement and a data storage arrangement and a portable computing device, a computer readable medium. The system is being interpreted as a generic computer with a processor and memory. There are no limitations requiring anything other than a generic computer and/or generic computing system. Therefore, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, which the courts have established does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp. 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983.
Claims 8 and 10 issue a control instruction which is interpreted as necessary data outputting. These claims are being interpreted to mean that a control instruction is issued but that “to cause the computing device to …” is an intended use and is thus not required.
Claim 9 is a field of use limitation because it limits the judicial exception of the authentication protocol setting to the technological field of a mobile computing device.
Claim 13 recites a data storage arrangement that stores a digital model. This invokes a computer as a tool to perform an existing process of storing data (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Claim 14 recites the primary processing arrangement receiving data from the further processing arrangement which equates to insignificant, extra solution activity of necessary data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
As such, claims 1-15 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 2: NO).
Step 2B:
Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B). These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these claims recite additional elements that equate to instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way and/or in a generic computing environment (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and to well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC) limitations (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). The paragraphs below discuss the additional elements recited above in the instant claims.
Claims 1-15 recite a computer implemented method, a system comprising a primary/further processing arrangement and a data storage arrangement and a portable computing device, a computer readable medium. The system is being interpreted as a generic computer with a processor and memory. There are no limitations requiring anything other than a generic computer and/or generic computing system. Therefore, these limitations equate to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computing environment, which the courts have established does not provide an inventive concept in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Claim 9 equates to a field of use limitation and equates to a well-understood, routine, and conventional limitations for a mobile device containing processors.
Claims 8, 10 and 14 issue a control instruction and receive data between two processors. These limitations equate to receiving/transmitting data over a network, which the courts have established as WURC limitation of a generic computer in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Claims 11 and 13 store data in memory, which the courts have established as a WURC function of a generic computer in Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
When these additional elements are considered individually and in combination, they do not provide an inventive concept because they equate to WURC functions and components of a generic computer and generic mobile device. Therefore, these additional elements do not transform the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: No).
As such, claims 1-15 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Singh et al. (“Singh”; J. Information Security 3, no. 1 (2012): 39-48).
The bold and italicized text below are the limitations of the instant claims, and the italicized text serves to map the prior art onto the instant claims.
Claims 1 and 12:
A system for use in configuring settings of a biometric authentication function of a computing device based on input data requirements of a personalized digital model of at least a portion of an anatomy of a patient, the system comprising: a primary processing arrangement having an input/output for receiving and outputting data, and the primary processing arrangement adapted to:
Singh uses electrocardiograms (ECG) for biometric authentication based on digital analysis (title) (pg. 41, col. 2, para. 2) This indicates that the method is computer-implemented. Computers inherently have a processor and are capable of receiving/outputting data.
receive a first input indicative of a set of input medical data requirements of the digital model
An ECG signal is acquired from an individual (FIG. 2) (pg. 41, sec. 3). To validate an ECG as a biometric for individual authentication, a feature vector is prepared from the extracted fiducials of P, Q, R, S, and T waves from each heartbeat (input medical data requirements) (pg. 42, sec. 3.3). The digital modeling of the ECG is considered a digital model (FIG 3).
for obtaining, based on running simulations on the digital model, a desired set of output information from the model,
This limitation recites an intended use and is thus not required by the claim.
receive a second input indicative of one or more biometric authentication protocols
An authentication strategy is used that generates a match score from feature vectors of a query sample to a template sample on an ECG (pg. 44, sec. 3.5-3.6).
being executable by the computing device for performing the biometric authentication function on the computing device,
This limitation recites an intended use and is thus not required by the claim.
wherein each authentication protocol is associated with a set of biometric input data requirements;
A feature vector of a template sample is acquired for use in the authentication strategy (pg. 44, sec. 3.5-3.6).
perform a comparison procedure between the input medical data requirements of the digital model and the biometric input data requirements of the one or more authentication protocols;
Euclidean distances between attributes of feature vectors of the query and template sample are calculated to determine a match (pg. 44, sec. 3.6).
configure an authentication protocol setting of the computing device based on the digital model input data requirements and based on said comparison.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation includes successful biometric authentication of the ECG-enables biometric system after comparing the feature vectors of the query and template (digital model section comprising a digital model input data requirements). See FIG 3 and sec. 3. The authentication operation is also performed on fingerprints and faces of patients in a combined fusion model (pg. 45, sec. 5). The system receives model feature vectors (FIG 3) (Table 1), then simulates the patients ECG, fingerprints, and faces through feature set generation and normalization (sec. 3.3, 3.4 and 5). Thus, depending on the data available, a particular authentication strategy is chosen.
Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons applied above to claim 12.
Claim 2: The customized ECG-enabled biometric system that performs the authentication task can be a mobile phone (pg. 47, sec. 6.5). This requires the phone obtaining the authentication strategy algorithm (default authentication protocol setting of the computing device) (pg. 44, sec. 3.6). The authentication strategy, which uses ECG, can be altered by incorporating other biometric data such as fingerprints and facial features (configuring comprises altering the default authentication protocol) (pg. 45, sec. 5).
Claim 3:
There are at least two different authentication strategies. One that relies on ECG (sec. 4) and one that relies on ECG, fingerprints, and facial features (sec. 5). These equate to the template samples (the second input is indicative of a set of multiple biometric authentication protocols). Either authentication strategy can be used (selecting one of the authentication protocols).
Claims 4-6:
The query and template samples contain ECG, fingerprint, and facial feature sets (the first and second inputs include require sensing data) (the sensing data requirements include at least one suitable modality) (sec. 3.5) (sec. 5, para. 2). The mobile phone collects the query and template sample (to be obtained by the computing device to provide the digital model input data and the biometrics data) (FIG 3) (sec. 6.5). The feature sets of the query and template samples are compared (comparing the sensing data requirements) (sec. 3.6). P wave delineation is performed on incoming ECG data (configuring one or more sensing modality acquisition parameters) (sec. 3.1).
Claim 7:
The authentication strategy compares a query sample to a template sample to find a match or identify the patient (sec. 3.6) (FIG 3).
Claim 8:
Singh performs authentication on ECG-enabled biometric authentication system using an authentication strategy (FIG 2) (sec 3.6). Successful authentication allows access to a patient’s online information (pg. 40, col. 1, para. 1) (issuing a control instruction). The phrase “to cause the computing device to implement the authentication protocol setting on at least one future authentication event” is being an interpreted as an intended use of the active step of “issuing a control instruction” and is thus not required by the claim.
Claims 9, 11 and 15:
The customized ECG-enabled biometric authentication system performs the authentication task and can be a mobile phone, which inherently comprises a processor (mobile computing device) (primary processing arrangement is integrated in the portable computing device) (pg. 47, sec. 6.5). The authentication algorithm is disclosed (computer program code) (sec. 3-3.6).
Claim 13:
The ECG-enabled biometric authentication system is associated with a database for the templates of the ECG, fingerprints and faces (sec. 5) (FIG 3) (data storage arrangement). The limitation of “for generating one or more model outputs” is an intended use and is thus not required by the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 for being unpatentable over Singh et al. (“Singh”; J. Information Security 3, no. 1 (2012): 39-48) in view of Agrafioti et al. (“Agrafioti”; Journal of Computer Networks and Communications 2012, no. 1 (2012): 924791).
The limitations of claims 1 and 12 are taught above by Singh in section Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102. The bold and italicized text below are the limitations of the instant claims, and the italicized text serves to map the prior art onto the instant claims.
Claim 10:
Singh collects ECGs of an individual (the first input) (FIG 3). Singh performs authentication on ECG-enabled biometric authentication system using an authentication strategy (FIG 2) (sec 3.6). Successful authentication allows access to a patient’s online information (pg. 40, col. 1, para. 1) (issuing a control instruction). The phrase “to cause the computing device to schedule implementation of the authentication protocol setting at the one or more relevant future times” recites an intended use of the active step of “issuing a control instruction” and is thus not required by the claim.
However, Singh does not teach that the input includes predicted future inputs of the model at a future time.
Agrafioti updates ECG biometric templates for continuous patient verification (abstract). There is an initial template, which is then updated based on destabilization of correlation score among consecutive ECG readings a and a biometric template (sec. 7). Since the ECG is measured over time, the P wave and QRS complex of the ECC remain unaltered despite physiological changes such as change in heart rate (sec. 5). Therefore, each new ECG reading contains predicted data points at a future reading (indication of one or more sets of predicted future data input requirements of the model at one or more future time).
It would have been prima facie obvious to modify Singh to perform continuous ECG monitoring and update ECG templates to account for physiological changes as taught by Agrafioti. Motivation is that continuous monitoring is beneficial for remote welfare monitoring (sec. 9 of Agrafioti) and physiological and psychological variations that effect ECG are expected and need to be accounted for to properly authenticate a user (pg. 2, col. 1, para. 5 of Agrafioti). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because both Singh and Agrafioti are directed to ECG biometric identification, and Agrafioti discloses the necessary algorithms for template updating (sec. 4).
Claim 14:
Singh teaches the ECG-enabled biometric authentication system performs digital analysis (sec. 3), indicating that the system comprises at least a processor for performing the digital analysis algorithm (primary processing arrangement). Singh determines input for the ECG model (determine the input data requirements for the digital model) (sec. 3.1-3.4).
However, Singh does not disclose a second processor, i.e. a further processing arrangement.
MPEP 2144.04.VI.B teaches that a prima facie case for obviousness exists when there is a duplication of parts. In this instance, claim 14 appears to duplicate processors. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious over the teachings of Singh, who disclose an ECG-enabled system comprising at least a processor, to modify Singh by duplicating the processor. There appears to be no new or unexpected result by having one processor perform functions where the results of the functions are then communicated to another processor.
Singh does not teach that the input parameters of the model are determined on a latest set of model outputs.
Agrafioti updates a template based on latest incoming input parameters, which cause differences between a template and a query sample (based on at least in part on a latest set of model outputs) (sec. 5 and 7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to modify Singh to update ECG templates based on discrepancies between a latest query ECG sample and an initial ECG template as taught by Agrafioti. Motivation is that physiological and psychological variations that effect ECGs are expected and need to be accounted for to properly authenticate a user, i.e. updating the template (pg. 2, col. 1, para. 5 of Agrafioti). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because both Singh and Agrafioti are directed to ECG biometric identification, and Agrafioti discloses the necessary algorithms for template updating (sec. 4).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Notable, but not relied upon, prior art includes: Kayyali et al. (US8679012B1) health monitoring device with physiological sensors and a biometric sensor for authentication.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Noah A. Auger whose telephone number is (703)756-4518. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 EST.
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, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at (571) 272-9047. 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.
/N.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1687
/KAITLYN L MINCHELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights