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 .
The action is responsive to the following communication: an application filed on 05/11/2023 where:
Claims 41-60 are currently pending.
Claims 1-40 are currently cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/12/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 41-60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding Independent claim 41, the claim recites the following steps:
acquiring an image of a diagnostic test positioning card using an image capture device;
determining, from the acquired image and by the one or more processors, a presence of a plurality of fiducial images on the test positioning card; determining, from the acquired image and by the one or more processors, a presence of a separate diagnostic test result carrier that has been placed on the test positioning card;
verifying, by the one or more processors, correct positioning of the test result carrier on the test positioning card within a specified tolerance by comparing the position or the orientation of the test result carrier relative to the plurality of fiducial images on the test positioning card; and
depending on verification of correct positioning of the test result carrier on the test positioning card, capturing an image including the test result carrier.
It is the position of the Examiner that the method steps are directed to an abstract mental process as they disclose observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed within the human mind with or without physical aid (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The additional computer components, including:
one or more processors
fail to integrate the abstract mental process into a practical application or amount to significantly more because the generic computer components merely add a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, which constitutes “apply it” language (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), where simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TL/ Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit)).
Regarding dependent claim 42, the claim is directed to further comprising: determining, from the acquired image and by the one or more processors, that a plane of the test positioning card is sufficiently parallel to a plane of the image capture device prior to capturing the image of the test result carrier.
It is the position of the Examiner that the claim is directed to an abstract mental process as they disclose observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed within the human mind with or without physical aid (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Regarding dependent claim 43, the claim is directed to further comprising: determining, from the acquired image and by the one or more processors, a proximity related parameter from the plurality of fiducial images on the test positioning card; and providing an error message depending on the determination of the proximity related parameter.
It is the position of the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract mental process as they disclose observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed within the human mind with or without physical aid (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Regarding dependent claim 44, the claim is directed to further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, that less than a threshold number of the plurality of fiducial images are visible in the acquired image of the test positioning card; and providing an error message.
It is the position of the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract mental process as they disclose observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed within the human mind with or without physical aid (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Regarding dependent claim 45, the claim is directed to further comprising: determining, from the acquired image and by the one or more processors, an alignment of the test result carrier on the test positioning card; and providing an error message depending on the alignment of the test result carrier on the test positioning card.
It is the position of the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract mental process as they disclose observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed within the human mind with or without physical aid (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Regarding dependent claim 46, the claim is directed to further comprising: determining, from the acquired image and by the one or more processors, a vertical alignment parameter of the test result carrier; and providing an error message depending on the vertical alignment parameter of the test result carrier.
It is the position of the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract mental process as they disclose observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed within the human mind with or without physical aid (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Regarding dependent claim 47, the claim is directed to further comprising: determining, using the one or more processors, an exposure parameter for the captured image of the test result carrier; and providing an error message depending on the exposure parameter.
It is the position of the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract mental process as they disclose observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed within the human mind with or without physical aid (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Regarding dependent claim 48, the claim is directed to further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, that the exposure parameter exceeds a desired exposure parameter; determining, by the one or more processors, that a control line is not present in the captured image of the test result carrier; and providing an error message that a control line is not present in the captured image of the test result carrier.
It is the position of the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract mental process as they disclose observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed within the human mind with or without physical aid (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Regarding dependent claim 49, the claim is directed to further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, that a control line is not present in the captured image of the test result carrier; and providing an error message that a control line is not present in the captured image of the test result carrier.
It is the position of the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract mental process as they disclose observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed within the human mind with or without physical aid (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Regarding dependent claim 50, the claim is directed to further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors, a position of a sample well in the captured image of the test result carrier; determining, by the one or more processors, a position of a result well in the captured image of the test result carrier; determining, by the one or more processors, that the position of the sample well is above the position of the result well in the captured image of the test result carrier; and flipping the captured image of the test result carrier.
It is the position of the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract mental process as they disclose observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed within the human mind with or without physical aid (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Regarding Independent claim 51, the claim recites the following steps:
acquiring an image of a diagnostic test positioning card using an image capture device;
determining, from the acquired image, a presence of a plurality of fiducial images on the test positioning card; determining, from the acquired image, a presence of a separate diagnostic test result carrier that has been placed on the test positioning card;
determining, from the acquired image, correct positioning of the test result carrier on the test positioning card within a specified tolerance by comparing the position or the orientation of the test result carrier relative to the plurality of fiducial images on the test positioning card; and
depending on correct positioning of the test result carrier on the test positioning card, capturing an image including the test result carrier.
It is the position of the Examiner that the method steps are directed to an abstract mental process as they disclose observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed within the human mind with or without physical aid (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The additional computer components, including:
one or more processors
fail to integrate the abstract mental process into a practical application or amount to significantly more because the generic computer components merely add a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, which constitutes “apply it” language (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), where simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TL/ Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit)).
Regarding dependent claim 52, the claim is directed to wherein the operations further comprise: determining, from the acquired image, that a plane of the test positioning card is sufficiently parallel to a plane of the image capture device prior to capturing the image of the test result carrier.
It is the position of the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract mental process as they disclose observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed within the human mind with or without physical aid (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Regarding dependent claim 53, the claim is directed to wherein the operations further comprise: determining, from the acquired image, an alignment of the test result carrier on the test positioning card; and providing an error message depending on the alignment of the test result carrier on the test positioning card.
It is the position of the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract mental process as they disclose observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed within the human mind with or without physical aid (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Regarding dependent claim 54, the claim is directed to wherein the operations further comprise: determining, from the acquired image, a proximity related parameter from the plurality of fiducial images on the test positioning card; and providing an error message depending on the determination of the proximity related parameter.
It is the position of the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract mental process as they disclose observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed within the human mind with or without physical aid (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Regarding dependent claim 55, the claim is directed to wherein the operations further comprise: determining an exposure parameter for the captured image of the test result carrier; and providing an error message depending on the exposure parameter.
It is the position of the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract mental process as they disclose observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed within the human mind with or without physical aid (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Regarding Independent claim 56, the claim recites the following steps:
acquiring an image of a diagnostic test positioning card using an image capture device;
determining, from the acquired image, a presence of a plurality of fiducial images on the test positioning card;
determining, from the acquired image, a presence of a separate diagnostic test result carrier that has been placed on the test positioning card;
determining, from the acquired image, correct positioning of the test result carrier on the test positioning card within a specified tolerance by comparing the position or the orientation of the test result carrier relative to the plurality of fiducial images on the test positioning card; and
depending on correct positioning of the test result carrier on the test positioning card, capturing an image including the test result carrier.
It is the position of the Examiner that the method steps are directed to an abstract mental process as they disclose observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed within the human mind with or without physical aid (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The additional computer components, including:
one or more processors
fail to integrate the abstract mental process into a practical application or amount to significantly more because the generic computer components merely add a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, which constitutes “apply it” language (see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), where simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TL/ Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit)).
Regarding dependent claim 57, the claim is directed to further comprise: determining, from the acquired image, that a plane of the test positioning card is sufficiently parallel to a plane of the image capture device prior to capturing the image of the test result carrier.
It is the position of the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract mental process as they disclose observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed within the human mind with or without physical aid (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Regarding dependent claim 58, the claim is directed to further comprise: determining that less than a threshold number of the plurality of fiducial images are visible in the acquired image of the diagnostic test positioning card; and providing an error message.
It is the position of the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract mental process as they disclose observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed within the human mind with or without physical aid (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Regarding dependent claim 59, the claim is directed to further comprise: determining that a control line is not present in the captured image of the test result carrier; and providing an error message that a control line is not present in the captured image of the test result carrier.
It is the position of the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract mental process as they disclose observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed within the human mind with or without physical aid (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Regarding dependent claim 60, the claim is directed to further comprise: determining a position of a sample well in the captured image of the test result carrier; determining a position of a result well in the captured image of the test result carrier; determining that the position of the sample well is above the result well in the captured image of the test result carrier; and flipping the captured image of the test result carrier.
It is the position of the Examiner that the claims are directed to an abstract mental process as they disclose observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions that can be performed within the human mind with or without physical aid (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW H LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7969 and fax number is 571-270-8969. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benny Tieu can be reached on 571-272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW H LAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682