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 .
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
-‘a specimen collecting unit for collecting saliva’ in claims 17 and 18 and 19 (no corresponding structure is clearly disclosed or linked)
-‘a measuring device configured to: receive…detect…apply…determine…apply…transmit’ in claims 17 and 18 and 19 (no corresponding structure is clearly disclosed or linked)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 17-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-19 recite the function/algorithm of ‘pre-trained inference model utilizing an artificial intelligence deep learning technique’, but the specification never discloses the necessary steps and/or flowcharts of how this occurs. The term “pre-trained inference model utilizing an artificial intelligence deep learning technique” is treated as a black box and the specification does not describe the specifics of how to achieve the above-recited function(s) with this algorithm. For example, How many and what types of layers are there? How is the data propagated? What logics are programmed to help the model and artificial intelligence deep learning technique make a decision? Is the training supervised or unsupervised? What are the weightings? Are other training concepts used such as regression? It is not enough that a skilled artisan could devise a way to accomplish the function because this is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2161.01(I). Therefore, adequate disclosure is needed.
Claim limitation “measuring device” in claims 17-19 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to provide any structure for the term ‘measuring device’. At best there is the implication that it may have a processor but that does not cover each function that the measuring device is meant to perform. The disclosure does not provide specific structure for the measuring device to perform each and every one of the claimed functions.
Claim limitation “a specimen collecting unit” in claims 17-19 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure does not provide any clear or specific structure for the term ‘specimen collecting unit’. At best it appears to be part of structure 111 in Figure 1, but there is no specific part of that structure denoted to be considered the specimen collecting unit. The specification provides no details.
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 17-36 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.
Claim 17 recites ‘an artificial intelligence deep learning technique’ twice in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not.
Claim 17 recites ‘saliva’, ‘the collected saliva’, ‘the stored saliva’, ‘the received saliva’, and ‘the saliva’ making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not. It would appear ‘the collected saliva’, ‘the stored saliva’, ‘the received saliva’ each should read ‘the saliva’.
Claim 17 recites ‘interfering substances’ twice in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not.
Claim 17 recites ‘a responding signal’ twice in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the inference model" multiple times in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It would appear this should read ‘the pre-trained inference model’.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “blood glucose” multiple times in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the predicted blood glucose information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 17 recites earlier ‘predict blood glucose’ making it further unclear if ‘the predicted blood glucose information’ is meant to refer to that or not.
Claim 18 recites ‘an artificial intelligence deep learning technique’ twice in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not.
Claim 18 recites ‘saliva’, ‘the collected saliva’, ‘the stored saliva’, ‘the received saliva’, and ‘the saliva’ making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not. It would appear ‘the collected saliva’, ‘the stored saliva’, ‘the received saliva’ each should read ‘the saliva’.
Claim 18 recites ‘interfering substances’ twice in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not.
Claim 18 recites ‘a responding signal’ twice in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the inference model" multiple times in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It would appear this should read ‘the pre-trained inference model’.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “blood glucose” multiple times in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not.
Claim 19 recites ‘an artificial intelligence deep learning technique’ twice in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not.
Claim 19 recites ‘saliva’, ‘the collected saliva’, ‘the stored saliva’, ‘the received saliva’, and ‘the saliva’ making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not. It would appear ‘the collected saliva’, ‘the stored saliva’, ‘the received saliva’ each should read ‘the saliva’.
Claim 19 recites ‘interfering substances’ twice in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not.
Claim 19 recites ‘a responding signal’ twice in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the inference model" multiple times in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It would appear this should read ‘the pre-trained inference model’.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “blood glucose” multiple times in the claim making it unclear if each recitation refers to the same element or not.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the inference model" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It would appear this should read ‘the pre-trained inference model’.
Claim 29 recites the limitation "the inference model" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It would appear this should read ‘the pre-trained inference model’.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "the generated diabetes diagnosis" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It would appear this should read “the diabetes diagnosis”.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the inference model" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It would appear this should read ‘the pre-trained inference model’.
Claim 36 recites the limitation "the inference model" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It would appear this should read ‘the pre-trained inference model’.
Claim limitation “measuring device” in claims 17-19 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification fails to provide any structure for the term ‘measuring device’. At best there is the implication that it may have a processor but that does not cover each function that the measuring device is meant to perform. The disclosure does not provide specific structure for the measuring device to perform each and every one of the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim limitation “a specimen collecting unit” in claims 17-19 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure does not provide any clear or specific structure for the term ‘specimen collecting unit’. At best it appears to be part of structure 111 in Figure 1, but there is no specific part of that structure denoted to be considered the specimen collecting unit and it is unclear which part is considered the specimen collecting unit. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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 17-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claimed invention in claims 17-36 are directed to statutory subject matter as the claims recite a system (claims 17-36) for saliva based glucose monitoring.
Step 2A, Prong One
Regarding claims 17, 18, and 19 the recited steps are directed mental process of performing concepts in a human mind or by a human using a pen and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Specifically from claim 17:
a server configured to process and analyze data;
a terminal configured to receive and display predicted blood glucose information of a user;
a collecting device for non-invasively collecting saliva from the user, the collecting device comprising:
a specimen collecting unit for collecting saliva;
a compression tube for storing and compressing the collected saliva; and
a filter for removing interfering substances from the stored saliva;
a biosensor configured to receive the saliva after interfering substances have been removed from the saliva and sense glucose within the received saliva; and
a measuring device configured to:
receive the biosensor;
detect insertion of the biosensor;
upon detecting insertion of the biosensor, apply a specimen recognizing signal to the biosensor to detect whether the saliva is in contact with the biosensor;
determine whether the saliva is in contact with the biosensor based on a responding signal, the responding signal being received by the measuring device after applying the specimen recognizing signal;
upon determining that the saliva is in contact with the biosensor, apply a specimen measuring signal to measure a glucose concentration in the saliva, wherein the specimen measuring signal is distinct from the specimen recognizing signal; and
transmit, a responding signal, received from the biosensor after applying the specimen measuring signal, to the server,
wherein the server comprises a pre-trained inference model utilizing an artificial intelligence deep learning technique, the inference model being trained with experimental data to infer blood glucose based on at least one of:
the glucose concentration in the saliva; and
at least one physical indicator associated with the user, and
wherein the server is further configured to:
predict blood glucose using the inference model based on at least one of the glucose concentration in the saliva acquired from the responding signal transmitted from the measuring device and the at least one physical indicator; and
transmit the predicted blood glucose information to the terminal.
Specifically from claim 18:
a terminal configured to:
process and analyze data; and
generate and display predicted blood glucose information of a user;
a collecting device for non-invasively collecting saliva from the user, the collecting device comprising:
a specimen collecting unit for collecting saliva;
a compression tube for storing and compressing the collected saliva; and
a filter for removing interfering substances from the stored saliva;
a biosensor configured to receive the saliva after interfering substances have been removed from the saliva and sense glucose within the received saliva; and
a measuring device configured to:
receive the biosensor;
detect insertion of the biosensor;
upon detecting insertion of the biosensor, apply a specimen recognizing signal to the biosensor to detect whether the saliva is in contact with the biosensor;
determine whether the saliva is in contact with the biosensor based on a responding signal, the responding signal being received by the measuring device after applying the specimen recognizing signal;
upon determining that the saliva is in contact with the biosensor, apply a specimen measuring signal to measure a glucose concentration in the saliva, wherein the specimen measuring signal is distinct from the specimen recognizing signal; and
transmit, a responding signal, received from the biosensor after applying the specimen measuring signal, to the terminal,
wherein the terminal comprises a pre-trained inference model utilizing an artificial intelligence deep learning technique, the inference model being trained with experimental data to infer blood glucose based on at least one of:
the glucose concentration in the saliva; and
at least one physical indicator associated with the user, and
wherein the terminal is further configured to predict blood glucose using the inference model based on at least one of the glucose concentration in the saliva acquired from the responding signal transmitted from the measuring device and the at least one physical indicator.
Specifically from claim 19:
a collecting device for non-invasively collecting saliva from a user, the collecting device comprising:
a specimen collecting unit for collecting saliva;
a compression tube for storing and compressing the collected saliva; and
a filter for removing interfering substances from the stored saliva;
a biosensor configured to receive the saliva after interfering substances have been removed from the saliva and sense glucose within the received saliva; and
a measuring device for processing and analyzing data and generating and displaying predicted blood glucose information of the user, the measuring device being configured to:
receive the biosensor;
detect insertion of the biosensor;
upon detecting insertion of the biosensor, apply a specimen recognizing signal to the biosensor to detect whether the saliva is in contact with the biosensor; and
determine whether the saliva is in contact with the biosensor based on a responding signal, the responding signal being received by the measuring device after applying the specimen recognizing signal;
upon determining that the saliva is in contact with the biosensor, apply a specimen measuring signal to measure a glucose concentration in the saliva, wherein the specimen measuring signal is distinct from the specimen recognizing signal; and
acquire the glucose concentration in the saliva from a responding signal received after applying the specimen measuring signal,
wherein the measuring device comprises a pre-trained inference model utilizing an artificial intelligence deep learning technique, the inference model being trained with experimental data to infer blood glucose based on at least one of:
the glucose concentration in the saliva; and
at least one physical indicator associated with the user, and
wherein the measuring device is further configured to predict blood glucose using the inference model based on at least one of the acquired glucose concentration and the at least one physical indicator.
These underlined limitations above describe a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) under the broadest reasonable standard, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a medical, biomedical or engineering professional with the aid of a pen and paper; their knowledge gained from education, background, or experience; or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests and undue level of complexity that the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform the mental process steps.
Examples of ineligible claims that recite mental processes include:
• a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A.;
• claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics Corp.
• a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC.
See p. 7-8 of October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility.
Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exceptions (abstract ideas) in claims 17-36 are not integrated into a practical application because:
•The abstract idea amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For example, the recitations regarding the generic computing components for performing the abstract ideas merely invoke a computer as a tool.
•The data-gathering steps do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity.
•There is no improvement to a computer or other technology. “The McRO court indicated that it was the incorporation of the particular claimed rules in computer animation that "improved [the] existing technological process", unlike cases such as Alice where a computer was merely used as a tool to perform an existing process.” MPEP 2106.05(a) II. The claims recite a computer that is used as a tool for performing the abstract ideas.
•The claims do not apply the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. Rather, the abstract idea is utilized to determine a relationship among data to provide a medical measurement.
•The claims do not apply the abstract idea to a particular machine. “Integral use of a machine to achieve performance of a method may provide significantly more, in contrast to where the machine is merely an object on which the method operates, which does not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b). II. “Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not provide significantly more.” MPEP 2106.05(b) III. The pending claims utilize a computer to perform abstract ideas. The claims do not apply the obtained response measurement to a particular machine. Rather, the data is merely output in a post-solution step.
When considered in combination, the additional elements (i.e. the generic computer functions and conventional equipment/steps) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Looking at the claim limitations as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Step 2B
The additional elements are identified as follows: see bolded elements in claims 17-19 above
Those in the relevant field of art would recognize the above-identified additional elements as being well-understood, routine, and conventional means for data-gathering and computing, as demonstrated by
Applicant's specification (Paragraphs 0041 and 0055) which discloses that the processor and memory comprise generic computer components that are configured to perform the generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry; and
The prior art provided by the Applicant in the IDS and by the Examiner in PTO-892 which disclose each of the elements as being known and conventional in the art elements;
Thus, the claimed additional elements “are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).” Berkheimer Memorandum, III. A. 3. Furthermore, the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll) note the well-understood, routine and conventional nature of such additional elements as those claimed. See option III. A. 2. in the Berkheimer memorandum.
Use of a machine that contributes only nominally or insignificantly to the execution of the claimed method (e.g., in a data gathering step or in a field-of-use limitation) would not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610, 95 USPQ2d at 1009 (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978)), and CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1370, 99 USPQ2d 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2011). See MPEP 2106.05(b). The collecting device, biosensor and measuring device are all merely used for data gathering steps to gather the data needed to perform the abstract ideas.
Regarding the dependent claims, the dependent claims are directed to either 1) steps that are also abstract or 2) additional data output that is well-understood, routine and previously known to the industry or 3) further recite additional elements at a high level of generality which are conventional in the art.
Claims 20-36 are steps that are also abstract as a mental process through additional data gathering or analysis or additional details regarding the data used for the analysis
Although the dependent claims are further limiting, they do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. A narrow abstract idea is still an abstract idea and an abstract idea with additional well-known equipment/functions is not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chopra et al. (Reference U on Page 1 of PTO-892), Cui et al. (Reference V on Page 1 of PTO-892), Dhanya et al. (Reference W on Page 1 of PTO-892), Gupta et al. (Reference X on Page 1 of PTO-892), Jahagirdar et al. (Reference U on Page 2 of PTO-892), Jin et al. (Reference V on Page 2 of PTO-892), Lin et al. (Reference W on Page 2 of PTO-892), Malik et al. (Reference X on Page 2 of PTO-892), Malik et al. (Reference U on Page 3 of PTO-892), Mirzaii-Dizgah et al. (Reference V on Page 3 of PTO-892), Modak et al. (Reference W on Page 3 of PTO-892), Palaz et al. (Reference X on Page 3 of PTO-892).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK FERNANDES whose telephone number is (571)272-7706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9AM-3PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JASON SIMS can be reached at (571)272-7540. 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.
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791