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.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Amendments filed on 5-4-26 has been entered and are addressed below.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea since it cannot be performed by a human mind. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed elements identified in the rejection is still an abstract idea, since the calculations can fall under mathematical concept and also still fall under certain methods of organizing human activity. Per the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.
Applicant argues that the inventive concepts amount to significantly more. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments do not improve the computer technology itself, rather it uses generic computer components to execute the identified abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art is moot in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims 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 by computationally analyzing a plurality of physical parameters of the at least one element in the at least one image, the plurality of physical parameters comprising at least one shape, size and color intensity”, “determining a position of the at least one element of each identified feature”, “determining the probability of the disease by processing the quantitative values and position of the at least one element for each identified feature using a trained machine learning model.”
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 and additionally training a machine learning fall under Mathematical Concepts/Mental Process. 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 § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumagai (US 2020/0069175) in view of Ceulemans (2019/0102670).
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 by computationally analyzing a plurality of physical parameters of the at least one element in the at least one image, the plurality of a physical parameters ( 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 (Kumagai paragraph 39),
determining the probability of the disease by processing 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”) using a trained machine learning model (Kumagai paragraph 28).
Kumagai does not explicitly teach the plurality of physical parameters comprising at least one of the shape, size and color intensity.
Ceulemans teaches perform object recognition on one or more images in an image database based on various factors (e.g., size of the image and/or object, shape of the image and/or object, color(s) (Ceulemans paragraph 223).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to combine the teachings of Kumagai with Ceulemans with the motivation of providing a more refined and accurate model (Ceulemans paragraph 6).
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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights