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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 has been considered and are addressed below.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-14 are drawn to a computer implemented method which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Independent claim 1, 8, 9, recite “identifying two or more eye features in the at least one image”, “for each identified features, identifying at least one element associated with the identified feature”, “for the at least one element of each identified feature determining a quantitative value indicative of the at least one element significance for the disease”, “determining a position of the at least one element of each identified feature”, “determining the probability of the disease based on the quantitative values and position of the at least one element for each identified feature.”
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including a “camera”, “user device”, “server”, “system”, “circuitry”, “database” which are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed (e.g., the “processor” language is incidental to what it is “configured” to perform). Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The claims recite the additional element of “capture the at least one image”, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Hence, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The originally filed specification supports this conclusion at Figure 1, and
Paragraph 40 recite “the user device may be a smart phone, a tablet, a computer with an internal or external camera or the like”.
The claims recite the additional element of “causing a display of a dynamic, interactive dashboard based on the enhanced resource utilization values”, which amounts to extra-solution activity concerning mere data gathering. The specification (e.g., as excerpted above) does not provide any indication that the additional elements are anything other than well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See: MPEP 2106.05(g).
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 2-7,10, 12-14 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein. Additionally, the devices mentioned in dependents claim are used as input devices.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 12-14 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The Markush grouping of system of claims 12-14 is improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons: Claim 9 is a server while claim 12-14 refers to a system.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 1022a as being Anticipated by Kumagai (US 2020/0069175).
With respect to claim 1 Kumagai teaches a computer implemented method for determining a probability of a disease in at least one image representative of an eye, the method comprising:
identifying two or more eye features in the at least one image, for each identified feature (Kumagai 35 “the image processing unit specifies the imaged part in the image based on a feature point (for example, fovea, optic papilla, corneal apex, and the like) of a biological body (for example, an eye ball)”),
identifying at least one element associated with the identified feature, for the at least one element of each identified feature (Kumagai paragraph 35 “the image processing unit specifies the imaged part in the image based on a feature point (for example, fovea, optic papilla, corneal apex, and the like) of a biological body (for example, an eye ball). For example, by detecting the fovea centralis from the image, the imaged part of the eyeball in the image is specified. Then, the image processing unit corrects the image according to the specified imaged part. For example, the image processing unit may perform the position correction of the image according to the imaged part, or may perform the distortion correction of the image.”),
determining a quantitative value indicative of the at least one elements significance for the disease ( Kumagai paragraph 40 “”parameters are values used for image processing such as a weighting coefficient, an identifier, an energy (a weight of graph), or a threshold value),
determining a position of the at least one element of each identified feature, determining the probability of the disease based on the quantitative values and position of the at least one element for each identified feature (Kumagai paragraph 46 “in the mathematical model that performs the detailed diagnosis, the divided images or the rough result of diagnosis may be used as the training data for input, and the detailed results of diagnosis such as disease name, the position of lesion, and the pathological condition may be used as the training data for output”).
Claim 8 is rejected as above.
Claim 9 is rejected as above.
Claim 14 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 2 Kumagai teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: determining a weighted sum of the quantitative values of the at least one element of each identified feature, wherein each weight relates to a significance that the corresponding element has when assessing a grade of the disease, comparing the weighted sum with a set of predetermined sums of known grades of the disease, and obtaining a grade of the disease as the known grade of the predetermined sum that best matches the weighted sum (Kumagai Paragraph 69).
Claim 10 is rejected as above.
Claim 13 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 3 Kumagai teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the probability of the disease is further based on a dataset of images representative of eyes with or without the disease (Kumagai paragraph 72).
Claim 12 is rejected as above.
With respect to claim 4 Kumagai teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein determining the probability of the disease is performed by a machine learning model, such as a neural network (Kumagai paragraph 75).
With respect to claim 5 Kumagai teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein identifying the two or more eye features in the at least one image and/or identifying the at least one element associated with the identified feature for each feature is performed by a machine learning model, such as a neural network (Kumagai paragraph 40).
With respect to claim 6 Kumagai teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the quantitative value of the elements is based on at least one of a thickness, type, shape, size, location, presence or non-presence, bulging or retraction, clarity, visible gaps, breaks, normal or swelling, inflammation, deformation, quantity, brightness, color, and shade of the elements (Kumagai paragraph 58).
With respect to claim 7 Kumagai teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: receiving a user input indicating what disease to look for, selecting only the identified features that are relevant for the indicated disease (Kumagai paragraph 35).
Claim 11 is rejected as above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REGINALD R REYES whose telephone number is (571)270-5212. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:30 M-F.
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, Shahid R. Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
REGINALD R. REYES
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/REGINALD R REYES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684