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 .
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.
Claim 13 is 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.
Re. Claim 13: Claim 13 recites the limitation “the distance threshold.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Each claim has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of the claims recites steps or instructions for ascertaining and processing data to assess quality of sleep of subject, which is grouped as a mental process. Accordingly, each of the claims recites an abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 recites:
An electronic device comprising memory circuitry, processor circuitry, and an interface (additional element),
wherein the electronic device is configured to:
obtain sensor data from a sensor, wherein the sensor data is indicative of one or more distances associated with the bovine animal in the environment (data-gathering, additional element);
generate, based on the sensor data, a feature vector (evaluation);
generate, based on the feature vector, a gait pattern indicative of a gait of the bovine animal (evaluation); and
determine, based on the gait pattern, the lameness parameter indicative of lameness of the bovine animal (evaluation).
Independent claim 20 recites the limitations of claim 1, mutatis mutandis, as a method claim; thus, the analysis of claim 1 applies analogously to claim 20.
As indicated above, the independent claims recite at least one step or instruction grouped as a mental process. Therefore, each of the independent claims recites an abstract idea. Each limitation, aside from language reciting a generic computer components, can be grouped as a mental process (see italicized portions above), and is addressed as follows:
The limitation of generate, based on the sensor data, a feature vector encompasses an individual observing data gathered from a generically-recited sensor and performing evaluation thereon to yield features (i.e., identification of any distinctive attribute from the gathered data). A vector is merely an ordered, finite sequence of such identified features.
The limitation of generate, based on the feature vector, a gait pattern indicative of a gait of the bovine animal encompasses an individual performing further evaluation on the previously identified feature vector to determine a gait pattern in any suitable manner. Since both the data gathered and the feature vector are broadly recited, this encompasses an individual observing, e.g., a series of sequential frames from a video of a bovine animal subject, identifying how the subject’s legs move, and determining a pattern therefrom based on the timestamps of the video frames, and then performing a judgement as to whether or not such a pattern can be determined to be lameness (defined by Applicant at Paragraph 0039 as “an abnormal gait”). Determination of abnormality would merely require prior knowledge of how the animal subject or another member of the species would typically move.
No limitations are provided that would force the complexity of any of the identified evaluation steps to be non-performable by pen-and-paper practice.
Alternatively or additionally, these steps describe the concept of using implicit mathematical formula(s) (i.e., evaluation of machine learning models) to derive a conclusion based on input of medical data, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as in Diamond v. Diehr. 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981), Parker v. Flook. 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978), and In re Grams. 888 F.2d 835, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1824 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The concept of the recited steps above is not meaningfully different than those mathematical concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (e.g. limitations relating to the data gathered or particular steps which are entirely embodied in the mental process) and amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed. Particularly, claims 10-18 describe evaluations performed via “bins associated with a width and length along an x-axis of the sensor;” however, a “bin” merely refers to a particular arrangement of data, whereby evaluations thereon are still considered mental processes carried out through a generically-recited computing device.
Thus, these concepts are similar to court decisions of abstract ideas of itself: collecting, displaying, and manipulating data (Int. Ventures v. Cap One Financial), collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group), collection, storage, and recognition of data (Smart Systems Innovations).
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use.
More specifically:
Independent claims 1 and 20 both recite the following additional elements:
electronic device comprising memory circuitry, processor circuitry, and an interface;
a sensor.
Such additional element are a generically recited elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field. The claim recites merely acquiring data from a generically recited sensor, having no operative connection to the electronic device besides communication of obtained data, which amounts to insignificant, extra-solution activity in the form of mere data gathering, which does not constitute an integration into a practical application. Although the sensors may imply particular structure, their use in the mental process is merely extra-solution. See MPEP 2106.05(b).III:
“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 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) (citations omitted)”
The electronic device comprising memory circuitry, processor circuitry, and an interface is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., encompassing components known to comprise a generic computer recited to perform generic computer functions of performing calculations, storing and interfacing with data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Thus, such additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment (processing of sensor data for gait analysis), such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified generically recited elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., electronic device comprising memory circuitry, processor circuitry, and an interface as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract ideas identified above in the independent claims (and their respective dependent claims) are not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2 and 3 recite that the sensor of claim 1 may be either a “three-dimensional camera” or a “Time of Flight camera;” however, such further detail regarding the sensor does not serve to elevate the sensor to a component beyond a machine which is directed to a mere data gathering step.
Each other dependent claim merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea, and do not recite additional elements to the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claims are each directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
None of the claims include additional elements that, when viewed as a whole, are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons:
Independent claims 1 recites:
electronic device comprising memory circuitry, processor circuitry, and an interface;
a sensor.
The additional elements identified above encompass additional elements identified in independent claim 20; thus, the analysis of additional elements of claim 1 applies analogously to additional elements recited in claim 20.
In considering the electronic device, Applicant’s Paragraph 0047 recites “The electronic devices disclosed herein (such as in Figs. 9 and 11) may be implemented in a monitoring electronic device such as device 300, 300A, and/or in a remote device, such as remove device 400.” A remote device is defined earlier at Paragraph 0045 as “The remote device 400 may be one or more of: a back-office device (such as, a computer, a laptop, a PC, a tablet, and/or a mobile phone) and a server device (such as, part of a cloud architecture).” Thus, the additional element of an electronic device comprising memory circuitry, processor circuitry, and an interface is directed a general purpose computer.
In considering the sensor configured to obtain sensor data “indicative of one or more distances associated with the bovine animal and the environment” as claimed, Applicant’s Paragraph 0186 describes that “the sensor can be one or more of: a structured light 3D camera, a Time-of-flight, ToF, camera, a 3D camera, a stereo 3D camera, a Light Detection and Ranging, LiDAR, camera, a 3D scanning system, and any other suitable 3D camera. In one or more example methods, the sensor is a Time of Flight, ToF, camera.” Applicant’s disclosure is not particular regarding the particular structure of any one of these possible sensors. No special programming or algorithms is indicated for how such sensors operate. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the imaging/distance sensing arts. Thus, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in imaging/distance sensing technology. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional element because it describes such an additional element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear from the claims themselves and the specification that these limitations require no improved computer resources and merely utilize already available computers and known sensors with their already available basic functions to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Dependent claims 2 and 3 recite particular sensors. See analysis of Applicant’s Paragraph 00186 above.
Each other dependent claim merely recites steps which further define the abstract idea and data/data-processing steps. Examiner notes that the dependent claims recite limitations which are extra-solution or part of the abstract idea itself do not constitute significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a):
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in the claims amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or are directed to extra-solution activity. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
For at least the above reasons, the claims are directed to applying an abstract idea on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. In other words, none of the claims provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in the independent claims do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (processing of sensor data). That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the claims merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field.
Therefore, none of the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, 14, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by:
Yagi et al. (US 20190150405 A1) (disclosed by Applicant) (hereinafter – Yagi).
Re. Claim 1: Yagi teaches an electronic device comprising memory circuitry, processor circuitry, and an interface (Paragraph 0013: general purpose computer is used to carry out the steps of the invention),
wherein the electronic device is configured to:
obtain sensor data from a sensor, wherein the sensor data is indicative of one or more distances associated with the bovine animal in the environment (Fig. 1: three-dimensional coordinates acquisition unit 11);
generate, based on the sensor data, a feature vector (Fig. 1: feature amount extraction unit 12; Paragraph 0066: extraction of first to tenth features from data acquired by unit 11);
generate, based on the feature vector, a gait pattern indicative of a gait of the bovine animal (Paragraph 0066: “Each of the fourth and fifth feature amounts is a feature amount of the back line of a cow and is used for calculating the locomotion score. Each of the sixth to eighth feature amounts is a feature amount indicating the walking state of a cow and used for calculating the locomotion score”); and
determine, based on the gait pattern, the lameness parameter indicative of lameness of the bovine animal (Paragraph 0062: “The locomotion score is a score indicating the degree of lameness of a cow”).
Re. Claim 2: Yagi teaches the invention according to claim 1. Yagi further teaches the invention wherein the sensor is a three-dimensional camera (Paragraph 0065: “The three-dimensional coordinates acquisition unit 11 acquires a group of three-dimensional coordinates representing the three-dimensional shape of a cow extracted from a distance image of the cow;” Examiner notes that an image sensor which acquires three-dimensional coordinates is interpreted as a three-dimensional camera).
Re. Claim 4: Yagi teaches the invention according to claim 1. Yagi further teaches the invention wherein the sensor is placed above a path of the environment where the bovine animal is expected to walk (Fig. 9(a); Paragraph 0162: “… obtain depth data from a camera 21 virtually installed above the cow to the back surface of the cow assuming that the cow is imaged by the camera 21. The feature amount extraction unit 12 calculates the average depth of respective points on the back surface of the cow from the depth data for one walking cycle”).
Re. Claim 5: Yagi teaches the invention according to claim 1. Yagi further teaches the invention wherein the sensor data comprises
one or more three-dimensional coordinates associated with each element of the environment and of the bovine animal (Paragraph 0065: “Conversion from the distance image to the three-dimensional coordinates may be performed by the distance image sensor or by the health condition estimation device 10. Note that the three-dimensional coordinates acquisition unit 11 can obtain the group of three-dimensional coordinates of a cow by performing background subtraction of the group of three-dimensional coordinates;” Examiner notes that performing background subtraction indicates that background (i.e., data related to the environment of the animal) is also acquired),
and/or one or more-point clouds.
Re. Claim 6: Yagi teaches the invention according to claim 1. Yagi further teaches the invention wherein the electronic device is configured to pre-process the sensor data (Paragraph 0065: background subtraction; Paragraph 0072: thresholding; Paragraph 0138: exclusion of three-dimensional coordinates of the neck and head).
Re. Claim 7: Yagi teaches the invention according to claim 6. Yagi further teaches the invention wherein the pre-processing of the sensor data comprises removing, from the sensor data, one or more of:
background data associated with a background in the environment (Paragraph 0065: background subtraction), and
body part data associated with a part of the body of the bovine animal (Paragraph 0138: exclusion of three-dimensional coordinates of the neck and head).
Re. Claim 8: Yagi teaches the invention according to claim 7. Yagi further teaches the invention wherein the part of the body includes one or more of: a head, a neck area, a shoulder area, a part of a back area, and a tail of the bovine animal (Paragraph 0138: exclusion of three-dimensional coordinates of the neck and head).
Re. Claim 9: Yagi teaches the invention according to claim 7. Yagi further teaches the invention wherein the pre-processing of the sensor data comprises transforming the sensor data (Paragraph 0065: background subtraction; Examiner notes that this is a transformation since the original data is modified).
Re. Claim 10: Yagi teaches the invention according to claim 1. Yagi further teaches the invention wherein the generation of the feature vector comprises dividing the sensor data into a number of bins associated with a width and a length along an x-axis of the sensor, wherein the x-axis is substantially aligned with a spine of the bovine animal (Figs. 6(a), 6(b); Paragraph 0110: “the feature amount extraction unit 12 cuts the group of three-dimensional coordinates by a plane 51 passing through the groin 25A of the fore leg and parallel to the YZ plane, and thus extracts the group of three-dimensional coordinates included in the plane 51. Similarly, with respect to the groin 25B of the hind leg, the group of three-dimensional coordinates included in the plane 51 is extracted;” Examiner notes that in the above case, two bins are extracted: plane 51 cutting through groin 25A and 25B).
Re. Claim 11: Yagi teaches the invention according to claim 1. Yagi further teaches the invention wherein the generation of the feature vector comprises determining, based on the sensor data, one or more spine points corresponding to a spine area of the bovine animal (Fig. 5: features for a fourth feature amount (i.e., “curve parameter of back line” used in calculation of a locomotion score) includes identification of start point 42a, 42b to determine a back line 43; Paragraph 0102: fifth feature amount requires identification of one or more spine points since it determines a shift of the line of the spine (back line) from a straight line; Fig. 6(c): inclination of back utilized as parameter in determining a sixth feature amount (i.e., “time change of both shoulder heights” used in calculation of a locomotion score)).
Re. Claim 14: Yagi teaches the invention according to claim 1. Yagi further teaches the invention wherein the generation of the feature vector comprises determining, based on the sensor data, one or more hip points corresponding to a hip bone area of the bovine animal, wherein the feature vector includes the one or more hip points (Fig. 5: straight line 41B intersects what can be considered a hip point of the animal to identify groin 25B).
Re. Claim 19: Yagi teaches the invention according to claim 1. Yagi further teaches the invention wherein the lameness parameter is indicative of a severity degree of lameness of the bovine animal (Paragraph 0062: “The locomotion score is a score indicating the degree of lameness of a cow”).
Re. Claim 20: See rejection of claim 1. Each citation provided in the rejection of claim 1 teaches each limitation required in claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
Yagi et al. (US 20190150405 A1) (disclosed by Applicant) (hereinafter – Yagi) in view of
Axelsson et al. (US 20140350410 A1) (hereinafter – Axelsson).
Re. Claim 3: Yagi teaches the invention according to claim 1, but does not teach the invention wherein the sensor is a Time of Flight camera.
Axelsson teaches analogous art in the technology of detecting lameness in a bovine animal (Abstract). Axelsson further teaches the invention wherein the sensor is a Time of Flight camera (Paragraph 0012: “Preferably, the optical imaging device comprises a camera. This may be a time of flight camera, which provides a depth measurement and thus a 3D image. Alternatively, the camera may be one that generates a 2D image, such as a CCD camera. Advantageously, the device comprises at least two cameras, enabling a 3D image to be generated using lower cost 2D cameras and additionally or alternatively to enable all legs of an animal to be viewed without obstruction”).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of a time of flight camera of Axelsson for the three-dimensional imaging unit of Yagi. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result (producing three-dimensional coordinate data) renders the claim obvious.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 12, 13, and 13-18 are not provided with prior art rejections. The following limitations are not taught or suggested in the prior arts of record:
Claim 12 recites a particular method involving binning and identifying the highest point in each bin as a spine point and further determination of one or more points having a distance to the spine point smaller than a distance threshold.
Claim 13 (as best understood) recites that the generation of the feature vector comprises determining, for each spine point, the feature vector for a height level based on a length of a bin for each spine point, wherein the height level corresponds to the distance threshold.
Claim 15 recites determination of the one or more hip points comprises determining the widest bin amongst the number of bins.
Claims 16-18 are dependent upon claim 15 and thus recite limitations of claim 15 which are not presented with prior art rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN XU whose telephone number is (571)272-6617. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JUSTIN XU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791