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 Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 9-14) in the reply filed on 20 January 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 20 January 2026. It is note that with respect to the non-elected Group III (claim 15), the instant restriction is withdrawn and claim 15 is examined with Group II herein. Claims 1-15 are currently pending . Claims 9-15 are examined herein. Priority The instant application is a continuation of International Application PCT/EP2021/079631, filed 26 October 2021, which claims priority t o United Kingdom Application GB 2017003.1, filed 27 October 2020, under 35 USC 119(a). Priority for each of claims 9-15 is acknowledged herein to the effective filing date of 27 October 2020 . Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement filed 20 April 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has therefore been considered. A signed copy of the IDS is included with this Office Action. Drawings The Drawings filed 20 April 202 3 and the replacement drawings filed 14 September 2023 are accepted. Specification Note : All references to the Specification herein pertain to the PG publication: US20230414417A1 . Claim Objections Claims 9 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 , line 4 recites, “ used sanitary napkin ; the body-facing ” which includes improper punction and should be amended to include a comma instead of the recited semi-colon. Claim 13, line 2 recites, “ comprises at least one of ; ” which includes improper punction and should be amended to include a colon instead of the recited semi-colon. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)-Indefiniteness 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. Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim s 9 and 15 recite, “ configured to facilitate the processing of data contained in an image of the body-facing surface, and wherein the indicia comprise hydrophobic material ”, which is indefinite with respect to any structure of indicia that would facilitate processing of data as no parameters are claimed whereby any image processing takes place as per the undefined “indicia” in the claim. The phrase “ configured to facilitate the processing of data ” further describes a result or purpose rather than a specific physical structure or clear method. It is further unclear as to what “ facilitation ” is required or what specific data processing occurs . Clarification is requested. Dependent claims fail to remedy the above issues and are rejected for the same reasons as above due to their dependency on claim 9. Claim s 9 and 15 recite, “ generating an output data related to an estimation of the menstrual fluid quantity based at least on the second data and the third data ” which is vague and indefinite because t he phrase “ related to an estimation ” is functionally broad, failing to specify whether the output is a precise value, a range, a classification (e.g., high/low), or merely a qualitative suggestion, leaving the claim scope uncertain . Clarification is requested. Claim 13 recites, “ wherein the step of generating an output data comprises at least one of … c) an arbitrary designation representing quantity ” wherein “ the word “a rbitrary ” implies that the designation is random, subjective, or has no defined standard. A claim must have clear “ metes and bounds ” which are not herein defined by said claim step. Clarification is requested. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The instant rejection reflects the framework as outlined in the MPEP at 2106.04: Framework with which to Evaluate Subject Matter Eligibility : (1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter; (2A) Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e . a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea; Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application (Prong Two); and (2B) If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept. Framework Analysis as Pertains to the Instant Claims: Step 1 Analysis: Are claims directed to process, machine, manufacture/composition of matter With respect to step ( 1 ): yes, the claims are directed to a method for obtaining information related to an estimation of menstrual fluid quantity and a non-transitory computer readable medium . Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis: Do claims recite abstract idea With respect to step ( 2A )( 1 ), the claims recite abstract ideas. The MPEP at 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as: mathematical concepts, (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations); certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices or principles, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and/or mental processes (procedures for observing, evaluating, analyzing/ judging and organizing information). With respect to the instant claims, under the ( 2A )( 1 ) evaluation, the claims are found herein to recite abstract ideas that fall into the grouping of mental processes (in particular procedures for observing, analyzing and organizing information). The claim steps to abstract ideas are as follows: Claim s 9 and 15 : processing the first data to generate second data identifying a location of indicia on the body-facing surface; processing the first data to generate third data identifying a location of an area of contrasting colour on the body-facing surface; and generating an output data related to an estimation of the menstrual fluid quantity based at least on the second data and the third data , wherein steps directed to identifying a location of an area are mental steps whereby mere observation is involved. Steps directed to output related to an estimation based on data are those that are, under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation of the instant claims and absent defining steps therein are mental steps directed to making an estimate given data. Claim 12: wherein the third data is normalised relative to the second data , wherein data normalization can be practiced mentally using mathematical principles. Claim 13 : generating an output data comprises at least one of; a) reporting a value representative of a quantity of menstrual fluid; b) making a recommendation of one or more suitable feminine hygiene product(s); and c) an arbitrary designation representing quantity , wherein steps directed to report generation, absent specific steps otherwise, are those which are mental activities of taking data and making a list of data, for example. Further tom making recommendations, said operations are mental activities that are routinely engaged in by healthcare providers, for example given provided data. Steps to some arbitrary designation, aside form issues above regarding indefiniteness, are those that are mental activities by which one can randomly assign value to observed data. Hence, the claims explicitly recite numerous elements that, individually and in combination, constitute abstract ideas. The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and determined herein to each cover performance in the mind ( data observations and assessment ). There are no specifics as to the methodology involved in said steps and thus, under the BRI, one could simply, for example, perform said operation with pen and paper, or, alternatively with the aid of a generic computer as a tool to perform said operations . These recitations are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it and providing certain results from the collection and analysis ( Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations ( Digitech Image Techs., LLC v Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344, 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) and comparing information regarding a sample or test to a control or target data in ( Univ. of Utah Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics Corp. (774 F.3d 755, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and Association for Molecular Pathology v. USPTO (689 F.3d 1303, 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2012)) that the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind with pen and paper, and can include mathematical concepts. Further, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid ( e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation (see, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674: noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016): holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind" (see Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016): holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis: Integration to a Practical Application Because the claims do recite judicial exceptions, direction under ( 2A )( 2 ) provides that the claims must be examined further to determine whether they integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d). A claim can be said to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when it applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is performed by analyzing the additional elements of the claim to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim is said to fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III). With respect to the instant recitations, the claims recite the following additional elements : Claim s 9 and 15 : obtaining or receiving first data representing an image of a body-facing surface of the used sanitary napkin; the body-facing surface comprising indicia configured to facilitate the processing of data contained in an image of the body-facing surface, and wherein the indicia comprise hydrophobic material ; computer implementation and computer readable medium. Claims 9-12 and 14 further limit the types of the first, second and third data , wherein each of said limiting steps further serves to gather the data for computations in the abstract idea using routine laboratory methods. Further with respect to the additional elements in the instant claims, those steps directed to data gathering ( obtaining data ) perform functions of collecting the data needed to carry out the abstract idea. Data gathering does not impose any meaningful limitation on the abstract idea, or on how the abstract idea is performed. Data gathering steps are not sufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid ( e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation (see, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674: noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016): holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind" (see Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016): holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Step 2B Analysis: Do Claims Provide an Inventive Concept The claims are lastly evaluated using the ( 2B ) analysis, wherein it is determined that because the claims recite abstract ideas, and do not integrate that abstract ideas into a practical application, the claims also lack a specific inventive concept. Applicant is reminded that the judicial exception alone cannot provide the inventive concept or the practical application and that the identification of whether the additional elements amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they provide significantly more than the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi). With respect to the instant claims, the additional elements of data gathering described above do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. As directed in the Berkheimer memorandum of 19 April 2018 and set forth in the MPEP, determinations of whether or not additional elements (or a combination of additional elements ) may provide significantly more and/or an inventive concept rests in whether or not the additional elements (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Said assessment is made by a factual determination stemming from a conclusion that an element (or combination of elements) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry, which is determined by either a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). With respect to the instant claims, the prior art to US2018/0114318 to Grupp (IDS reference) provide that obtaining data such as image data from a sanitary product and using computer sources to do so was well-known, routine and conventional at the time of the invention. See Grupp at [abstract]. Further the art to 9,928,586 to Burnett et al. disclose imaging of a used sanitary product for analysis purposes, further speaking the WURC nature of “obtaining or receiving a first data representing an image…” as herein provided and doing so using computer-implemented methods. See Burnett et al . at [abstract]. The dependent claims have been analyzed with respect to step 2B and none of these claims provide a specific inventive concept, as they all fail to rise to the level of significantly more than the identified judicial exception. For these reasons, the claims, when the limitations are considered individually and as a whole, are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US2018/0114318 to Grupp (IDS reference) . Claims 9 and 15 are directed to: A computer-implemented method for obtaining information related to an estimation of menstrual fluid quantity in a used sanitary napkin, the method comprising: obtaining or receiving first data representing an image of a body-facing surface of the used sanitary napkin; the body-facing surface comprising indicia configured to facilitate the processing of data contained in an image of the body-facing surface, and wherein the indicia comprise hydrophobic material; processing the first data to generate second data identifying a location of indicia on the body-facing surface; processing the first data to generate third data identifying a location of an area of contrasting colour on the body-facing surface; and generating an output data related to an estimation of the menstrual fluid quantity based at least on the second data and the third data . Claim 15 further includes computer-readable medium recitations. The prior art to Grupp discloses “ a computer-implemented method for obtaining information related to an estimation of menstrual fluid quantity in a used sanitary napkin ” teaching “a method, system, device and computer program product for analyzing absorbent articles ” and “ method includes receiving an image or data representing an image of an absorbent region ( 302 ) of an absorbent article. The absorbent region comprises at least one stain ( 350 ) caused by a bodily fluid discharge of a person using the absorbent article. The absorbent region includes at least one reference mark ( 304 ) ” [abstract] ; [0010] ; 0011] ; [0030]; [0037]; Figure 2 . Grupp further disclose that said methods are applicable for measuring blood loss ( estimations of fl u id quantity ) at [0002]. Grupp teach es identifying locations of indicia (marks) and locations of contrast at [0008]; [0025], teaching “f urther, the absorbent region also includes one or more reference marks with pre-determined or known surface areas. The subject may use an image capturing device, such as a camera, to capture an image of the absorbent region of the absorbent article, subsequent to the use of the absorbent article. The absorbent region may include one or more stains caused by the bodily fluid discharge of the subject using the absorbent article. A surface area of the stain(s) may be computed by determining a pixel-to area conversation scale based on the number of image pixels configuring the pre-determined surface area of the one or more reference marks in the image or the data representing the image ” . Gru pp discloses generation of output data related to estimation of the menstrual fluid quantity based on location and contrast at [0025], teaching “a volume of the bodily fluid discharge contained in the absorbent article may then be determined using a mathematical product of the computed surface area of the stain and a pre-determined absorption coefficient of the absorbent region ”. With respect to claim s 10 and 11 , Gru pp discloses “ a measured distance between at least two indicia as represented in the image ” at [0050]; teaching “ one or more reference marks may be arranged on the absorbent region 302 such that a reference area encompassed between the one or more reference marks corresponds to the pre-determined surface area ” and [0029] disclosing, “i n at least one example embodiment, the system 200 is caused to compute a surface area of the stain using the reference mark ”. Grupp discloses, “ the processor 202 of the system 200 is configured to perform a color contrast analysis of the received image or the data representative of the image of the absorbent region to identify a perimeter of the stain. For instance, the processor 202 may be configured to compute Red-Green-Blue (RGB) values of each image pixel in the image (or from the data representing the image) and those image pixels associated with RGB values different than pre-determined RGB values of the absorbent region (for example, RGB values associated with a white color) may be identified ” at [0060]. With respect to claim 12 , Grupp disclose s , the third data is normalised relative to the second data ” wherein Grupp teaches “ i n some embodiments, the reference mark arranged on the absorbent region may similarly be identified by comparing RGB values with known RGB values corresponding to the reference mark ” [0060] . With respect to claim 13 , Grupp discloses “ generating an output data comprises at least one of; a) reporting a value representative of a quantity of menstrual fluid; b) making a recommendation of one or more suitable feminine hygiene product(s); and c) an arbitrary designation representing quantity ” wherein Grupp teaches at least an output wherein a report of quantity is determined at [0010]-display; [0084]-user interface; claim 12-display with the determined volume of bodily fluid. With respect to claim 14 , Grupp discloses first, third, and/or output data that comprises a date and/or a time at [0082]; [0083] disclosing that devices for output can include computers and smartphones and the like which inherently have time associated with them on display and thus a “report” for example would show time value as do image digital data, as it is timestamped. As such, the prior art to Grupp fully anticipate each of claims 9-15 herein. Prior Art Made of Record The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: 1. US2016/0063698 to Burnett et al. disclosing “a method (and system) for tracking menstrual blood loss volume may comprise receiving one or more images of a used sanitary product from a first client device, displaying the one or more images on a second client device, receiving at least one input from a user via the second client device which includes an estimate of blood volume within or upon the sanitary product in the one or more images, and aggregating blood volume data from the one or more images to determine blood loss volume via a microprocessor for at least one menstrual cycle ” [0010] which further includes “ a patient to take a photograph or other image of their used menstrual product, ideally on a standardized and/or labeled background, or mat, then discard the product as they normally would ” [0013] . Burnett et al. do not specifically include that the surface of the used sanitary napkin at the body-facing surface comprises the indicia. Rather, a separate “mat” includes said marks in the invention. 2 . CN119846180A to Cao et al. disclosing detecting the performance of a finished product of a sanitary product, comprising: obtaining sanitary products to be detected, and determining performance indicators of the sanitary product detection; comparing detection parameters obtained under the performance indicators, generating a detection data set according to the detection parameters, and generating a performance indicator difference curve according to the difference of the detection data set detected by the performance indicators . 3 . Gregorio et al . (Talanta (2017) Vol. 162:634-640) disclosing analysis of human bodily fluids on superabsorbent pads using Attenuated Total Reflectance (ATR) Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR). Conclusion No claims are allowed. E-mail Communications Authorization Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting following form via EFS-Web or Central Fax (571-273-8300): PTO/SB/439 . Applicant is encouraged to do so as early in prosecution as possible, so as to facilitate communication during examination. Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03. Inquiries Papers related to this application may be submitted to Technical Center 1600 by facsimile transmission. Papers should be faxed to Technical Center 1600 via the PTO Fax Center. The faxing of such papers must conform to the notices published in the Official Gazette, 1096 OG 30 (November 15, 1988), 1156 OG 61 (November 16, 1993), and 1157 OG 94 (December 28, 1993) (See 37 CFR § 1.6(d)). The Central Fax Center Number is (571) 273-8300. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lori A. Clow, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0715. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 12:00PM to 10:00PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached on (571) 272-9047. Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to (571) 272-0547. Patent applicants with problems or questions regarding electronic images that can be viewed in the Patent Application Information Retrieval system (PAIR) can now contact the USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center (Patent EBC) for assistance. Representatives are available to answer your questions daily from 6 am to midnight (EST). The toll free number is (866) 217-9197. When calling please have your application serial or patent number, the type of document you are having an image problem with, the number of pages and the specific nature of the problem. The Patent Electronic Business Center will notify applicants of the resolution of the problem within 5-7 business days. Applicants can also check PAIR to confirm that the problem has been corrected. The USPTO’s Patent Electronic Business Center is a complete service center supporting all patent business on the Internet. The USPTO’s PAIR system provides Internet-based access to patent application status and history information. It also enables applicants to view the scanned images of their own application file folder(s) as well as general patent information available to the public. /Lori A. Clow/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1687