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 1-12 are pending and are examined on the merits.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign to JP2022-022784 filed 02/17/2022. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Accordingly and as detailed on the 3/8/2023 filing receipt, the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 02/17/2022. At this point in examination, all claims have been interpreted as being accorded this priority date. In future actions, the effective filing date of one or more claims may change, due to amendments to the claims, or further analysis of the disclosure(s) of the priority application(s).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/07/2023 and 11/05/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the list of cited references was considered in full by the examiner. A signed copy of the corresponding 1449 form has been included with this Office action.
Drawings
The drawings filed 02/07/2023 are accepted.
Specification
The specification filed 02/07/2023 is accepted.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The Supreme Court has established a two-step framework for this analysis, wherein a claim does not satisfy § 101 if (1) it is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea, and (2), if so, the particular elements of the claim, considered “both individually and as an ordered combination,” do not add enough to “transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355). Applicant is also directed to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The instantly claimed invention (claim(s) 1-12 being representative) is directed to a method. Therefore, the instantly claimed invention falls into one of the four statutory categories. [Step 1: YES]
Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Under the MPEP § 2106.04, the Step 2A (Prong 1) analysis requires determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
Claims 1 and 11 recite registering the information identifying the sample and a sensory evaluation item about the sample; the limitations registering, given the plain meaning of registering, encompasses observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III) performable by human mind (mental process), since human mind is capable of registering information.
Claims 1 and 11 further recite adding identification information to the information identifying the sample; the limitation adding information, given the plain meaning of adding, encompasses observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion performable by human mind (mental process), since human mind is capable of adding information to another information.
Claims 1 and 11 further recite registering a sensory result; the limitation registering, given the plain meaning of registering, encompasses observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion performable by human mind (mental process), since human mind is capable of registering information.
Claims 1 and 11 further recite information exchange between a customer, a system management company and an entrusted analysis company, which is analogous to an abstract idea in the form of a method of organizing human activity (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).II.C.iii pertains).
Claim 2 recites setting the analysis item corresponding to the sensory item by using the database; the limitation setting items/data in a database, given the plain meaning of setting, encompasses observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion (performable by human mind (mental process), since human mind is capable of registering information.
Claim 5 recites generating the sensory result by using a learning data; the limitation generating results using data can be practically performed in human mind (mental process), since huma mins is capable of generating/producing results using data.
Claims 6 and 8 recite calculating an amount to be paid; the limitation calculating an amount is considered a mathematical process.
Claims 7 and 9 recites calculating an amount to be charged; the limitation calculating an amount is considered a mathematical process.
Claim 10 recites generating a consideration result based on the analysis result and sensory results (mental process of generating results based on known data).
Claim 3, 4, and 12 provides additional information about the additionally recites elements of a second device, fourth device, and the sample.
The identified claims recite a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) and/or fall into one of the groups of abstract ideas of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and/or certain methods of organizing human activity for the reasons set forth above. See MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2) III and MPEP 2106.04 (b) I. Therefore, claims are directed to one or more judicial exception(s) and require further analysis in Prong Two. [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES]
Step 2A: Prong 2: Under the MPEP § 2106.04, the Step 2A, Prong 2 analysis requires identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and evaluating those additional elements to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons.
The additional elements of claims 1-12 include the following.
Claim 1 recites a first device, a second device and a third device; receiving, by the second device, information identifying the sample, transmitting, by the second device, the identification information and an analysis item corresponding to the sensory evaluation item to the third device; receiving, by the second device, the identification information and an analysis result corresponding to the analysis item of the sample from the third device; and transmitting, by the second device, the analysis result and the sensory result to the first device.
Claim 3 recites a fourth device, usable by a sensory test company that conducts a sensory test is further provided; transmitting, by the second device, the identification information and a sensory test item corresponding to the sensory evaluation item to the fourth device; and receiving, by the second device, the sensory result transmitted from the fourth device.
Claim 5 recites the second device that includes a machine learning device and a storage device that stores the analysis result in the past as learning data.
Claim 7 recites receiving, by the second device, an amount to be paid from the third device, the amount to be paid.
Claim 9 recites receiving, by the second device, a first amount to be paid from the third device, the first amount to be paid being an amount to be paid to the entrusted analysis company for the analysis result; receiving, by the second device, a second amount to be paid from the fourth device
The additional elements of a first device, a second device and a third device, a fourth device, a machine learning device, a storage device, receiving and transmitting information are generic computer components and/or processes. There are no limitations that indicate that the first device, second device, third device, fourth device, machine learning device, storage device, and receiving and transmitting require anything other than generic computing systems. The courts have found the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the additional elements of receiving and transmitting amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. The courts have found the limitations that amount to necessary data gathering and outputting are insignificant extra-solution activity that do not integrate a recited judicial exception into a practical application in Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 and O/P Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, the additionally recited elements amount to generic computer components and/or insignificant extra-solution activity and, as such, the claims as a whole do no integrate the abstract idea into practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
MPEP 2106.04(d) I lists the following example considerations for evaluating whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or another technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In Step 2A, Prong 1 above, claim steps and/or elements were identified as part of one or more judicial exceptions (JEs).
In Step 2B below, any remaining steps and/or elements are therefore in addition to the identified JE(s). Any such additional steps and additional elements are further discussed in Step 2B.
Here in Step 2A, Prong 2, no additional step or element clearly demonstrates integration of the JE(s) into a practical application.
At this point in examination, it is not yet the case that any of the Step 2A, Prong 2 considerations enumerated above clearly demonstrates integration of the identified JE(s) into a practical application. Referring to the considerations above, none of 1. an improvement, 2. treatment, 3. a particular machine or 4. a transformation is clear in the record.
For example, regarding the first consideration at MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), the record, including for example the specification, does not yet clearly disclose an explanation of improvement over the previous state of the technology field. The claims do not yet clearly result in such an improvement (e.g. specification, citing to the US PGPUB for this application: [4-5, 87]).
In conclusion regarding Prong 2, claims 1-12 are directed to an abstract idea. [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO]
Step 2B: In the second step it is determined whether the claimed subject matter includes additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. An inventive concept cannot be furnished by an abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106.05.
The additional elements of claims 1-12 include the following.
Claim 1 recites a first device, a second device and a third device; receiving, by the second device, information identifying the sample, transmitting, by the second device, the identification information and an analysis item corresponding to the sensory evaluation item to the third device; receiving, by the second device, the identification information and an analysis result corresponding to the analysis item of the sample from the third device; and transmitting, by the second device, the analysis result and the sensory result to the first device.
Claim 3 recites a fourth device, usable by a sensory test company that conducts a sensory test is further provided; transmitting, by the second device, the identification information and a sensory test item corresponding to the sensory evaluation item to the fourth device; and receiving, by the second device, the sensory result transmitted from the fourth device.
Claim 5 recites the second device that includes a machine learning device and a storage device that stores the analysis result in the past as learning data.
Claim 7 recites receiving, by the second device, an amount to be paid from the third device, the amount to be paid.
Claim 9 recites receiving, by the second device, a first amount to be paid from the third device, the first amount to be paid being an amount to be paid to the entrusted analysis company for the analysis result; receiving, by the second device, a second amount to be paid from the fourth device
The additional elements of a first device, a second device and a third device, a fourth device, a machine learning device, a storage device, receiving and transmitting information are conventional computer components and/or processes. The courts have found the use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or 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 provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TU CommunicationsLLCv. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607,613,118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).
Furthermore, the additional elements of receiving and transmitting amount to necessary data gathering and outputting. The courts have found the limitations that amount to necessary data gathering and outputting are insignificant extra-solution activity that do not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Therefore, the additional element are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. [Step 2B: NO]
Therefore, the instantly rejected claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (JP2008117365A, as cited on the IDS Form dated 02/07/2023), in view of Li (CN 107274326 A, as cited on the attached Form 892).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses having first, second, and third devices used by a health management system, where the first device is used by the user (teaching the instantly recited "customer"), the second device is used by identification information management (teaching the instantly recited "system management company"), and the third device is used by the test organization (teaching the instantly recited "entrusted analysis company") [0008]; reading on limitations of a test and analysis method performed among a first device, a second device and a third device, the first device being usable by a customer, the second device being usable by a system management company, the third device being usable by an entrusted analysis company including an analytical instrument for analyzing a sample.
Sato further discloses that for a sample sent from a user with identification information unique to the user the management identification information to be added to the sample is generated in order to send the sample to the laboratory. Sato further discloses receiving personal information related to health management guidance from the first device, unique identification information is generated, and the generated identification information is added to the received personal information and registered in the first database. And means for sending identification information to the first device [0008]; reading on limitations of receiving, by the second device, information identifying the sample, the information being transmitted from the first device; registering, by the second device, the information identifying the sample and a sensory evaluation item about the sample; adding, by the second device, identification information to the information identifying the sample.
Sato further discloses that for a sample sent from a user who receives health management guidance with identification information unique to the user, the management identification information to be added to the sample is generated in order to send the sample to the laboratory. The means for registering the correspondence table between the management identification information and the user identification information in the second database and the test result data of the specimen from the apparatus installed in the test organization are received and added to the test result data. associating the received inspection result data with the user identification information, and storing it in the second database as sensitive information for each user; When a health management instruction request is received from the first device, sensitive information of the requesting user is read from the second database, and management identification information is generated [0008]; reading on limitations of transmitting, by the second device, the identification information and an analysis item corresponding to the sensory evaluation item to the third device; receiving, by the second device, the identification information and an analysis result corresponding to the analysis item of the sample from the third device; registering, by the second device, a result generated about the sample; and transmitting, by the second device, the analysis result and the result to the first device.
Sato does not expressly disclose that the test is sensory test and entrusted analysis. Li discloses an information management system comprising a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) and a laboratory information system (LIS) (claim 1). Li further discloses providing identification to the testing samples (pg. 18, para. 2). Li further discloses thath ne part is the laboratory information system, and its basic function is Focus on the analysis of the detection agencies within the analysis of the business department, the administrative management of the logistics department management information, coordination, supervision and inspection of various analytical testing agencies within the business departments of the information and testing agencies to run the relevant information, data and analysis of test data (for example sensory evaluation and entrusted analysis) (claim 1). Li further discloses an information management system composed of an analysis and detection mechanism of a laboratory operating system (LOS) + laboratory information system (LIS), … The information management system of the testing organization will be linked with the supervision and management institution of the analytical testing laboratory (pg. 7, last para.).
Li further discloses that the information management system architecture and information data structure standardization solution can be widely applied to food safety analysis and testing laboratories, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, veterinary drugs, pesticides, chemical analysis and testing laboratories, environmental monitoring laboratories, land and resources testing, chemical products, Environmental protection testing laboratories and other analysis and testing as the main activity of the scientific laboratories (pg. 1, para. 1). Li further discloses that the test is sensory inspection (pg. 45, para. 6).
Regarding claim 3, Sato discloses that for the sample, the sample 3 generates management identification information to be added to the sample to be sent to the testing institution where the apparatus 3 is installed, and registers a correspondence table between the management identification information and the user identification number in the second database [0008]. Sato further discloses that for a sample, test the sample Means for generating management identification information to be added to the specimen to be sent to the facility (for example, a forth device) and registering a correspondence table between the management identification information and the user identification information in the second database [0010]; reading on limitations of wherein a fourth device usable by a sensory test company that conducts a sensory test is further provided, the sensory test and entrusted analysis method further comprising: transmitting, by the second device, the identification information and a sensory test item corresponding to the sensory evaluation item to the fourth device; and receiving, by the second device, the sensory result transmitted from the fourth device.
Regarding claim 4, Sato discloses that the means for registering the table in the second database and the test result data of the sample from the apparatus installed in the test organization are received, and the management identification information added to the test result data is stored in the correspondence table by the user [0008]. Sato further discloses that a third device having a second database for storing sensitive information such as genetic information and health checkup information [0009]; reading on limitations of wherein the second device generates the sensory result corresponding to the sensory evaluation item.
Regarding claim 10, Sato discloses that in response to a request for reference to sensitive information from the first device, the second database is searched with the identification information of the user who transmitted the reference request, and the corresponding sensitive information is read and referenced. Means for transmitting to the requesting first device, and means for outputting the sensitive information received from the third device, the first device [0008]. Sato further discloses that the consulting company browses the health management information and genetic information to obtained without including personal information, performs consulting, performs the consulting result on the consulting company server, and performs consulting information input processing [0028]. Sato further discloses that the conformation form can be used to for diagnosis in a medical institution, and can itself be used as evidence based on the format [0033].
Li discloses analyzing the information management system of the testing agency and the information management system of the corresponding administrative regulatory agencies when collecting the information of the testing counterparts and the monitoring counterparts and the testing and product information of the counterparts, the minimum information unit related to supervision and administration is integrated to form standardized information data structure (claim 1); reading on limitations of generating, by the second device, a consideration result based on the analysis result and the sensory result, the consideration result indicating a relationship between the analysis result and the sensory result; and transmitting, by the second device, the consideration result to the first device.
Regarding claim 11, Sato discloses having first, second, and third device used by a health management system, where the first device is used by the user (for example, customer), the second device is used by identification information management (for example, system management company), and the third device is used by the test organization (for example, entrusted analysis company) [0008]; reading on limitations of a test and analysis method performed among a first device, a second device and a third device, the first device being usable by a customer, the second device being usable by a system management company, the third device being usable by an entrusted analysis company including an analytical instrument for analyzing a sample.
Sato further discloses that for a sample sent from a user with identification information unique to the user the management identification information to be added to the sample is generated in order to send the sample to the laboratory. Sato further discloses receiving personal information related to health management guidance from the first device, unique identification information is generated, and the generated identification information is added to the received personal information and registered in the first database. And means for sending identification information to the first device [0008]; reading on limitations of registering, by the second device, the information identifying the sample and a sensory evaluation item about the sample; adding, by the second device, identification information to the information identifying the sample.
Sato further discloses that for a sample sent from a user who receives health management guidance with identification information unique to the user, the management identification information to be added to the sample is generated in order to send the sample to the laboratory. The means for registering the correspondence table between the management identification information and the user identification information in the second database and the test result data of the specimen from the apparatus installed in the test organization are received and added to the test result data. associating the received inspection result data with the user identification information, and storing it in the second database as sensitive information for each user; When a health management instruction request is received from the first device, sensitive information of the requesting user is read from the second database, and management identification information is generated [0008]; reading on limitations of registering, by the second device, a sensory result generated about the sample.
Sato does not expressly disclose that the test is sensory test and entrusted analysis. Li discloses an information management system comprising a Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) and a laboratory information system (LIS) (claim 1). Li further discloses providing identification to the testing samples (pg. 18, para. 2). Li further discloses thath ne part is the laboratory information system, and its basic function is Focus on the analysis of the detection agencies within the analysis of the business department, the administrative management of the logistics department management information, coordination, supervision and inspection of various analytical testing agencies within the business departments of the information and testing agencies to run the relevant information, data and analysis of test data (for example sensory evaluation and entrusted analysis) (claim 1). Li further discloses an information management system composed of an analysis and detection mechanism of a laboratory operating system (LOS) + laboratory information system (LIS), … The information management system of the testing organization will be linked with the supervision and management institution of the analytical testing laboratory (pg. 7, last para.).
Li further discloses that the information management system architecture and information data structure standardization solution can be widely applied to food safety analysis and testing laboratories, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, veterinary drugs, pesticides, chemical analysis and testing laboratories, environmental monitoring laboratories, land and resources testing, chemical products, Environmental protection testing laboratories and other analysis and testing as the main activity of the scientific laboratories (pg. 1, para. 1). Li further discloses that the test is sensory inspection (pg. 45, para. 6).
Regarding claim 12, Sato discloses that for a sample sent from a user with identification information unique to the user the management identification information to be added to the sample is generated in order to send the sample to the laboratory [0008]. Sato further discloses that first, a test request is made from the subject computer to the window company server, and personal information input processing is performed in the window company server. The window server performs a sample collection device for collecting somatic cells such as oral mucosa and body fluids such as blood, and ID issuance / sending processing, and sends the sample collection device to the subject. The subject performs specimen return processing after specimen collection with the specimen collection instrument, and sends specimens such as somatic cells and body fluids with ID 201 to the window company.; reading on limitations of wherein the customer sends, to the system management company, the sample having the identification information added thereto.
In KSR Int 'l v. Teleflex, the Supreme Court, in rejecting the rigid application of the teaching, suggestion, and motivation test by the Federal Circuit, indicated that “The principles underlying [earlier] cases are instructive when the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious. When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.” KSR Int'l v. Teleflex lnc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007).
Applying the KSR standard to Sato and Li, examiner concludes that this combination represents known work in the fields of endeavor may prompt variations. Both Sato and Li are directed to laboratory information management. Sato disclosed the known method of first, second, and third device used by a health management system for sending a specimen taken from a subject to a liaison company, transferring the sent specimen to a management company, and sending the specimen from the management company to each examination company based on an examination type of the specimen. In the same field of research, Li provided that the testing organization can provide sensory results for food samples. Implementing the sensory evaluation of food samples in the base testing information management system and method of Sato would have allowed for efficient exchange of information among a customer, a system management company and an analysis company for the purpose of testing food products. The sensory test and entrusted analysis method of the claimed invention is closely analogous to the well-known Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS). One ordinary skilled in the laboratory management solutions would have would have recognized the similar class of problems and the known solutions of the prior art, as disclosed by Li, and it would have been within the ordinary skill level to implement the system in a different context, for example implementing known food sample and related tests of Li in the known lab management system of Sato. Therefore, the invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claims 2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Li, as applied to claims 1, 3-4, and 10-12 above, and further in view of Zahn (US20230259363A1, as cited on the attached Form 892).
Claims 2 and 5 depend on claim 1. Limitations of claim 1 has been taught in the above rejections.
Regarding claim 2, Sato discloses that when a health management instruction request is received from the first device, sensitive information of the requesting user is read from the second database, and management identification information is generated… For a sample sent from a user with identification information unique to the user, the management identification information to be added to the sample is generated in order to send the sample to the laboratory [0008] (for example, associating sensory evaluation item with analysis item). Sato further discloses a second device that receives personal information such as personal information, generates unique identification information for each user and registers it in the first database, and a second database that stores sensitive information such as genetic information and health checkup information [0008]. Li discloses that the sample is food sample and the test is sensory evaluation.
Further regarding claim 2, Sato and Li do not expressly disclose that the sensory evaluation item is selected from a standard sensory evaluation item. Zahn discloses a method for sensory characterization comprising determining attributes for a sample, collecting sensory data for the sample, determining a sensory characterization model, training the sensory characterization model based on the attributes and the sensory data, determining attributes for a test sample, and predicting a sensory characterization for the test sample using the sensory characterization model (abstract). Zahn further discloses that preprocessing can be performed to measure components which can influence different types of sensory characteristics (e.g., retronasal olfaction, orthonasal olfaction, taste, gustation, etc.) [0049].
Regarding claim 5, Sato discloses that the test result data of the specimen is received from the apparatus, the management identification information added to the test result data is converted into user identification information by the correspondence table, and the received test result data is converted into the user identification information [0010]. Sato further discloses a genetic information management unit 115 for registering and managing genetic information sent from the testing company server 104, A health management information management unit 116. Sato further discloses a information management unit 116 for registering and managing the consulting result sent from the consulting company [0017]. Sato further discloses storing and means for transmitting to the requesting first device, and means for outputting the sensitive information received from the third device, the first device [0008].
Li discloses the completion of experimental records and test calculation and analysis and issued a normative test report (pg. 45, para. 3). Li further discloses a variety of test analysis of original test records by the laboratory management system and calculation of test data (pg. 13, para 1 and 2). Li further discloses that the information management systems have learning abilities (pg. 20, para. 2).
Further regarding claim 5, Sato and Li do not expressly disclose that the second device includes a machine learning device and a storage device that stores past data as learning data.
Zahn discloses determining attributes for a sample, collecting sensory data for the sample, determining a sensory characterization model, training the sensory characterization model based on the attributes and the sensory data, determining attributes for a test sample, and predicting a sensory characterization for the test sample using the sensory characterization model (abstract). Zhan further discloses predicting a characterization for each of the set of training samples using the model and training the model based on a ranking (claim 2) [0060]; Zahn further discloses determining a composition for a sample; learning a flavor function using flavor training data collected from set of sensory panelists; and determining a flavor characterization for the sample based on the flavor function and the composition (claim 8); reading on imitations of the second device includes a machine learning device and a storage device that stores the analysis result in the past as learning data, the sensory test and entrusted analysis method further comprising: generating, by the machine learning device, the sensory result by using the learning data; and transmitting, by the second device, the generated sensory result to the first device.
Applying the KSR standard to Sato, Li, and Zahn, examiner concludes that this combination represents Applying known technique to a known method. Sato, Li, and Zahn are directed to testing management systems and methods. Sato and Li disclosed the known method of first, second, and third device used by a health management system for sending a specimen taken from a subject to a liaison company, transferring the sent specimen to a management company, and sending the specimen from the management company to each examination company based on an examination type of the specimen, where the testing organization can provide sensory results for food samples. In the same field of research, Zahn provided the details of the sensory evaluation item. Combining the details of sensory evaluation (selecting sensory evaluation items) of Zahn, with the sensory evaluation of food samples in the base testing information management system and method of Sato, Li, and would have allowed for efficient exchange of information among a customer, a system management company and an analysis company for the purpose of testing food products. One ordinary skilled in the art would have been capable of applying the known food testing information management system and method of Sato and Li to the sensory evaluation details of Zahn and the results would have been predictable to one ordinary skilled in the art. Therefore, the invention would have been prima facie obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Li, as applied to claims 1, 3-4, and 10-12 above, and further in view of Complete Guide to Laboratory Information Management Systems (06/17/2020). altexsoft. https://www.altexsoft.com/blog/lims-systems/, hereinafter referred to as “Altexsoft”, as cited on the attached Form 892).
Claims 6-9 depend on claims 1 and 3, Limitations of claims 1 and 3 are taught in the above rejections.
Regarding claims 6-9, Sato discloses a contracting company that provides additional services [0014]; the subject computer 101 can also perform an additional service request process 516. When providing the additional service at the window company, the window company server 102 performs the additional service provision request process 518 to the contracted company server 106, and after performing the additional service provision process 519 at the contracted company, Provided to the subject [0030].
Li discloses that the management philosophy designed subroutine will automatically test the consumable of the theoretical consumption and the actual consumption ratio analysis, …a simple ratio analysis that it can be used as an evaluation indicator of the running cost of the test (pg. 31, para. 3).
Further regarding claims 6-9, Altexsoft discloses Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS) workflow, features, and main vendors. Altexsoft further discloses the six phases of LIMS: receiving a sample, monitoring, sample processing, quality control, reporting, and storing. Altexsoft further discloses logging in the sample upon receiving the samples from users/customers, marking the sample with a unique barcode for tracking, using CoC procedures to accuracy of testing results, tracking sample through its life cycle, integrating with lab instruments, after lab analysis, the system performs a quality control assessment of the operation, gauging test results by graphing the results and creating control charts, using historical data to enter control limits. Altexsoft further discloses integrating auditing and reporting capabilities into a lab satisfying the requirements of health service agencies, and distributing the results to designated parties. Altexsoft further discloses some of the additional features of the LIMS, such as, accounting (Having a billing module in place, the LIMS creates quotes, converts to orders, and generates invoices for further export to numerous accounting packages), Customer relationship management, Personnel and workload management, Analytics (Using historical data, a LIMS can create a trend analysis chart by test, department, client, site, or a variety of other criteria. Analyzing all the lab data, a LIMS helps better understand your lab turnaround time and identify performance issues leading to critical business decisions), Supplies management, Patient portal (Having access to a patient portal, lab clients can view their status and results, check limits, view or print reports, etc. What’s particularly relevant today - patients can remotely log in samples via the portal and then ship them to the laboratory) (pg. 3-13; see also, Most popular LIMS solutions, pg. 14-24: invoice tracking and editing in LabWare, and billing in Bika).
As disclosed by the Altexsoft, LIMS have a billing module in place, the LIMS creates quotes, converts to orders, and generates invoices for further export to numerous accounting packages. In addition, LIMS have patient portals to allow patients to perform various tasks, for example, viewing their results and make payments. The sensory test and entrusted analysis method of the claimed invention is closely analogous to the well-known Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS). Thus, an ordinary skilled in the laboratory management solutions would have recognized the similar class of problems and the known solutions of the prior art, as disclosed by Alexsoft above, and it would have been within the ordinary skill level to implement the system in a different context. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to calculate amount to be paid to entrusted company and sensory test company and bill the patient accordingly, using their laboratory management system.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHAZAL SABOUR whose telephone number is (703)756-1289. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00.
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, Larry D. Riggs can be reached at (571) 270-3062. 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.
/G.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1686
/G. STEVEN VANNI/Primary patents examiner, Art Unit 1686
Prosecution Insights