DETAILED ACTION
No prior art was found that anticipates or renders Claims 1, 13, and 25 obvious. While the claims recite concepts similar to data augmentation, they perform additional steps that would have not been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The invention relates to performing data augmentation when it is determined that a number of input-output pairs in a dataset is below a predefined threshold, and thus more data is required. The data augmentation process begins by selecting a suitable physical-optical model to generate predictions based on selected inputs of each pair. Then, the method computes a difference between the predictions and the ground truth for each input as
Δ
. Each input is then modified to generate modified inputs, which are fed to the physical-optical model to generate new predictions using the modified inputs. The corresponding
Δ
is then subtracted from each new prediction to yield a modified output vector, and each modified output vector and its associated modified input augment the dataset for training the machine learning system.
The references representing the closest prior art of record are BURWINKEL [WO2021148517A1], RILEY (“Calculating the sample size required for developing a clinical prediction model”), CHANG (“Predictability of pseudophakic refraction using patient-customized paraxial eye models”), and LI (“Gradient Boosting Decision Tree Algorithm for the Prediction of Postoperative Intraocular Lens Position in Cataract Surgery”) hereafter BURWINKEL, RILEY, CHANG, and LI. BURWINKEL relates to measuring clinical ophthalmological training data using an eye-scanning device, using IOL refractive powers as ground truth, selecting a suitable model of the eye for determining refractive power, and generating training data. RILEY relates to identifying a required sample size to avoid overfitting and collecting further data when an existing dataset is too small. CHANG relates to using a suitable model for analyzing the eyes of patients, generating predictions in good agreement with measured refractions using a patient-customized paraxial eye model based on input parameters, and computing differences between the refractive outcome predicted by the model and actual post-operative manifest spherical equivalent refractive error. LI relates to IOL power augmentation, replacing implanted IOL power with randomly selected powers, and adjusting ground truth ACD values. However, none of these references, individually or in combination, teach or suggest: determining modified output vectors A’ by subtracting the determined difference vectors
Δ
from the third output vectors A’’’, as recited in the claims.
LI’s formula
A
C
D
n
e
w
=
A
C
D
o
l
d
-
m
I
O
L
n
e
w
-
I
O
L
o
l
d
is the closest formula found in prior art, but it combines input and output data in the formula to determine the adjusted ground truth value for augmenting the dataset, and no model output appears in the formula. Further, the dependent claims are also not rejected based on prior art by virtue of dependency.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE102022125420.8, filed on 9/30/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 9/29/2023 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “424” has been used to designate both Training supervision unit and system-internal bus system. Further, reference character “422” is used to designated A’-det. unit and training supervision unit. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-25 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.
Regarding Claims 1, 11, 13, 23, and 25, the claims recite “absolute values much smaller than […]”, which is a relative term. The specification does not describe how to determine what how small the absolute values must be in comparison to the standard deviations of the components of the associated input vector. Therefore, the claims are rendered indefinite. For purposes of examination, “much smaller than” will be constructed as an absolute value smaller than the standard deviations of the components of the associated input vector.
Regarding Claims 2-7, 9-10, 12, 14-19, 21-22, and 24, the dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims and are likewise rejected.
Regarding Claims 8 and 20, the dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of their respective parent claims and are likewise rejected. Additionally, the claims lack antecedent basis for “the first data pairs”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 11 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claims 11 and 23, the claims state “each have absolute values much smaller than or equal to standard deviations of the corresponding components of the associated input vector”, which broadens the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-12 are directed to a process. Claims 13-25 are directed to a machine or an article of manufacture.
With respect to claim(s) 1, 13, and 25:
2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Specifically:
determining/determine the number of data pairs of the measured patient data; (Mental process – A person can mentally determine the number of data pairs of the measured patient data – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determining/determine whether the number of data pairs lies below a previously defined training data threshold value, and if that is the case, carrying out the following steps: (Mental process – A person can mentally determine that a number lies below a threshold value – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
selecting/select a physical-optical model for a relation function R on the basis of at least one first subset of the plurality of data pairs E/A, (Mental process – A person can mentally select a physical-optical model for a relation function based on data – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
wherein an approximation vector with respect to the associated output vector is determined by the relation function R as the result if an associated input vector E is used as the argument of the relation function R; (Mental process – Using a relation function R for determining an approximation vector involves mathematical calculations (see paragraph [0082] – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
using/use at least one second subset of the plurality of data pairs E/A in order to determine corresponding second output vectors A” from input vectors E by means of the relation function R; (Mental process – Using a relation function R involves mathematical calculations (see paragraph [0083]) – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determining/determine, for all data pairs of the second subset, a respective difference vector
Δ
between the determined corresponding second output vector A” of the relation function R and the associated ground truth data vector A; (Mental process – Determining a difference vector involves mathematical calculations (see paragraph [0085]) – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
modifying/modify the input vectors E of the data pairs E/A of the second subset by a respective ε-vector, wherein the components of the ε-vector each have absolute values much smaller than the standard deviations of the components of the associated input vector relative to all the input vectors; (Mental process – Modifying the input vector by using a ε-vector involves mathematical calculations (see paragraphs [0089-0091]) – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determining/determine third output vectors A” of the relation function R, wherein the modified input vectors E’ of the data pairs of the second subset are used as arguments of the relation function R; (Mental process – Using a relation function R involves mathematical calculations (see paragraph [0093-0094]) – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
determining/determine modified output vectors A’’’ by subtracting the determined difference vectors
Δ
from the third output vectors A’’’; and (Mental process – subtracting vectors involves mathematical calculations) – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
If claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations as a mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the claim limitations fall within the mathematical or mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim “recites” an abstract idea.
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
(Claim 1) A computer-implemented method for training a machine learning system with an extended set of patient data E'/A', the method comprising (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 13) A training data generator system for training a machine learning system with an extended set of patient data E'/A', the system comprising: a processor; and a memory which operatively cooperates with the processor to store instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 25) A computer program product for training a machine learning system with an extended set of patient data, wherein the computer program product comprises a computer-readable storage medium comprising program instructions stored thereon, wherein the program instructions are executable by one or more computers or control units and cause said one or more computers or control units to: (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
measuring/measure patient data as a plurality of data pairs E-A, wherein the data pairs comprise input vectors E and assigned first output vectors A, wherein the output vectors A represent ground truth data for a machine learning system if associated input vectors E are used during a learning phase of the machine learning system; (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
training/train a machine learning system for generating a machine learning model by means of the modified input vectors E', the modified output vectors A' and the measured patient data. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim as a whole, looking at the additional elements individually and in combination, does not contain any other additional elements that are indicative of integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
(Claim 1) A computer-implemented method for training a machine learning system with an extended set of patient data E'/A', the method comprising (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 13) A training data generator system for training a machine learning system with an extended set of patient data E'/A', the system comprising: a processor; and a memory which operatively cooperates with the processor to store instructions which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
(Claim 25) A computer program product for training a machine learning system with an extended set of patient data, wherein the computer program product comprises a computer-readable storage medium comprising program instructions stored thereon, wherein the program instructions are executable by one or more computers or control units and cause said one or more computers or control units to: (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
measuring/measure patient data as a plurality of data pairs E-A, wherein the data pairs comprise input vectors E and assigned first output vectors A, wherein the output vectors A represent ground truth data for a machine learning system if associated input vectors E are used during a learning phase of the machine learning system; (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
training/train a machine learning system for generating a machine learning model by means of the modified input vectors E', the modified output vectors A' and the measured patient data. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 2 and 14:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein components of the respective ε-vectors are generated randomly. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein components of the respective ε-vectors are generated randomly. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 3 and 15:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the machine learning system is selected from the group consisting of a fully connected neural network system, a recurrent neural network system, a convolutional neural network system, a graph neural network system, a transformer network system and a foundation model system. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the machine learning system is selected from the group consisting of a fully connected neural network system, a recurrent neural network system, a convolutional neural network system, a graph neural network system, a transformer network system and a foundation model system. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 4 and 16:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein a subset of the data pairs consists of biometric measurement variables of the eye and a refractive power of an intraocular lens as input vector and a refractive result of cataract surgery as output vector. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein a subset of the data pairs consists of biometric measurement variables of the eye and a refractive power of an intraocular lens as input vector and a refractive result of cataract surgery as output vector. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 5 and 17:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein a subset of the data pairs consists of biometric measurement variables of the eye and the refractive result of cataract surgery as input vector and the refractive power of an intraocular lens as output vector. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein a subset of the data pairs consists of biometric measurement variables of the eye and the refractive result of cataract surgery as input vector and the refractive power of an intraocular lens as output vector. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 6 and 18:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the refractive result represents an objective refraction, and a subjective refraction is an additional output variable. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the refractive result represents an objective refraction, and a subjective refraction is an additional output variable. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 7 and 19:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein a subset of the data pairs corresponds to biometric measurement variables of the eye and a refractive result of cataract surgery as input vector and an actually expected refraction as output vector. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein a subset of the data pairs corresponds to biometric measurement variables of the eye and a refractive result of cataract surgery as input vector and an actually expected refraction as output vector. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 8 and 20:
2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Specifically:
wherein the relation function R is selected on the basis of a subset of the first data pairs. (Mental process – A person can mentally select a relation function R on the basis of data – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III))
Additionally, the claim(s) do not recite any new additional elements that would amount to an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (individually or in combination) or significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 9 and 21:
2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Specifically:
wherein the relation function describes a physical dependence, a statistical correlation or a dependence corresponding to an individually trained machine learning system. (Mathematical concepts – This limitation recites a further description of the relation function judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
Additionally, the claim(s) do not recite any new additional elements that would amount to an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (individually or in combination) or significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 10 and 22:
2A Prong 1: The claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea. Specifically:
wherein the relation represents a physical-optical description of the eye. (Mathematical concepts – This limitation recites a further description of the relation function judicial exception – see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I))
Additionally, the claim(s) do not recite any new additional elements that would amount to an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application (individually or in combination) or significantly more than the judicial exception.
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 11 and 23:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
wherein the components of the respective ε-vector each have absolute values much smaller than or equal to standard deviations of the corresponding components of the associated input vector. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
wherein the components of the respective ε-vector each have absolute values much smaller than or equal to standard deviations of the corresponding components of the associated input vector. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With respect to claim(s) 12 and 24:
2A Prong 2: The additional elements recited in the claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, individually or in combination.
Additional elements:
displaying the measured patient data; (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see § MPEP2106.05(g).)
displaying the modified input vectors E’ and the modified output vectors A’, (Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see § MPEP2106.05(g).)
receiving a signal for confirming individual vector pairs of the modified input vectors E’ and the associated modified output vectors A’; and (Mere data gathering – Adding insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering to the judicial exception – see § MPEP2106.05(g).)
excluding the non-confirmed vector pairs for the training of the machine learning system. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
2B: The claim(s) do(es) not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
displaying the measured patient data; (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see § MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) - Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93)
displaying the modified input vectors E’ and the modified output vectors A’, (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC) - see § MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) - Presenting offers and gathering statistics, OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93)
receiving a signal for confirming individual vector pairs of the modified input vectors E’ and the associated modified output vectors A’; and (Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (WURC)- see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(ll)(i) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).)
excluding the non-confirmed vector pairs for the training of the machine learning system. (Mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f).)
Since the claim does not recite additional elements that either integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor provide significantly more than the judicial exception, the claim is not patent eligible. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
With respect to claim 25:
The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of A computer-readable storage medium encompasses signals per se. Paragraphs [00110-00111] states:
“[00110] The computer program product may in this case comprise one ( or more) computer-readable storage medium/media comprising computer-readable program instructions in order to cause a processor or a control system to implement various aspects of the present disclosure.
[00111] As media, electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic or infrared media or semiconductor systems are used as forwarding medium; for example SSDs (solid state devices/drives as solid state memory), RAM (random access memory) and/or ROM (read-only memory), EEPROM (electrically erasable ROM) or any combination thereof. Suitable forwarding media also include propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves in waveguides or other transmission media (for example light pulses in optical cables) or electrical signals transmitted in wires.”
A claim whose BRI covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2106.03(II). It is suggested that claim 25 be amended to recite “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” to overcome this rejection. Accordingly, Claim 25 fails to recite statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
BURWINKEL [WO2021148517A1] relates to measuring clinical ophthalmological training data using an eye-scanning device, using IOL refractive powers as ground truth, selecting a suitable model of the eye for determining refractive power, and generating training data.
RILEY (“Calculating the sample size required for developing a clinical prediction model”) relates to identifying a required sample size to avoid overfitting and collecting further data when an existing dataset is too small.
CHANG (“Predictability of pseudophakic refraction using patient-customized paraxial eye models”) relates to using a suitable model for analyzing the eyes of patients, generating predictions in good agreement with measured refractions using a patient-customized paraxial eye model based on input parameters, and computing differences between the refractive outcome predicted by the model and actual post-operative manifest spherical equivalent refractive error.
LI (“Gradient Boosting Decision Tree Algorithm for the Prediction of Postoperative Intraocular Lens Position in Cataract Surgery”) relates to IOL power augmentation, replacing implanted IOL power with randomly selected powers, and adjusting ground truth ACD values.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alvaro S Laham Bauzo whose telephone number is (571)272-5650. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 AM - 11:00 AM | 1:00 PM - 5:30 PM ET.
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, Usmaan Saeed can be reached on (571) 272-4046. 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.
/A.S.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2146
/DANIEL T PELLETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2121
Prosecution Insights