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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/26/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the expansion area being a difference in an area” in line 4 should be amended to read –the expansion area is different than an area--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the expansion area being a difference in an area” in line 4 should be amended to read –the expansion area is different than an area--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a breathing function” in line 3 should be amended to read –the breathing function--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1: claim 1, recite an apparatus to process information, and claims 19 and 20 recites a series of steps or acts. Thus, the claims are directed to a process and a product. which are ones of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE: Claim(s) 1, 19 and 20 recite(s) specific limitations/method steps of: an information processing apparatus and/or a method comprising: input time-series distance image data acquired by measuring a distance from a subject during a breathing exercise and division position data indicating a position at which a chest region and an abdominal region of the subject are divided in the time-series distance image data; calculate a standard deviation image indicating a standard deviation of values for each pixel in a distance image indicated by the time-series distance image data. This limitation recites a mental process, because the claimed limitation describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim(s) recite the combination of additional elements/method steps of: calculate a respiratory feature amount indicating a feature of breathing of the subject, based on a divided standard deviation image acquired by dividing the standard deviation image for each divided region being divided at a position indicated by the division position data. Accordingly, this additional element/step does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim limitations fail to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception
STEP 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional structural elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite additional elements, such as, calculate a respiratory feature amount indicating a feature of breathing of the subject, based on a divided standard deviation image acquired by dividing the standard deviation image for each divided region being divided at a position indicated by the division position data, but do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these structural elements are generically claimed to enable the collection of data by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and providing/displaying data, and (ii) automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized these functions to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner. Merely adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activities’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (In re TLI Communications LLC). As such, the recitation of these additional limitations in claims 2-18 does not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and represent insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as a sensor and use of a processor does not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)). Thus, the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the Abstract Idea.
When viewed alone or in combination, the limitations of claims 1-20 merely instruct the practitioner to implement the concept of collecting data with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. The inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea; instead, the application must provide something inventive, beyond mere “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” (Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial L.L.C.). The additional elements of independent claims when viewed alone or as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. In other words, this claim merely applies an abstract idea to a computer and does not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 recite the limitation “measuring a distance from a subject during breathing” this limitation is not defined by the claims, which renders the claims indefinite. One with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know the measured distance is from the subject to which structural element, and how the distance is being measured. The scope of the claim remains indeterminate because of the claimed “measuring a distance from a subject during breathing”.
Claims 1, 19 and 20 recite the limitation “division position data” this limitation is not defined by the claims, which renders the claims indefinite. One with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know the position data is the position of the chest and abdominal regions with respect to which structural element. As broadly as claimed the scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to the claimed “division position data”.
Claims 1-20 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
For example: claims 1, 19 and 20 recite the limitation “each divided region being divided at a position indicated by the division position data” One with ordinary skill in the art would not be able to know the claimed “divided region” is the region of which element, and if the claimed “divided at a position” means divided by the position or something else.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY A ABOUELELA whose telephone number is (571)270-7917. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at 5712725596. 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.
/MAY A ABOUELELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791