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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "measuring unit" and "operating unit" in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, examiner, under 112(f), interprets operating unit (23) to include trained AI model (interpretation engine) as disclosed in Fig. 2A and [0004]. The written description does not provide sufficient information about the AI interpretation engine or the trained AI model. Furthermore, the functionality of the invention is predicated on a trained AI model or interpretation engine. MPEP 2161.01(I) notes the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. Therefore, the written description does not adequately demonstrate possession of the invention.
Dependent claims 2-15 inherit the same deficiencies.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without a trained AI model or an inference component of an AI model and Fig. 2A discloses the AI interpretation engine as a necessary part of operating unit (23). Under 112(f), operating unit cannot generate biomedical data without AI interpretation engine. Examiner addresses only the salient Wands factors below for brevity, though other factors may also support the conclusion of non-enablement.
In addition, consideration under In re Wands, shows that an undue amount of experimentation would be required to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. Although the level of one of ordinary skill in the art is high at the time the application was filed, the level of predictability is low and the amount of direction provided by the inventors is not sufficient to enable a reasonable amount of experimentation to practice the invention.
Predictability in the art is considered low because the invention claims to correlate traditional Chinese medical practices to well-known routine and conventional biomedical practices using artificial intelligence. AI training outcomes can be difficult to predict even in well-known technical fields using conventional techniques and standardized training data.
The inventors disclosed a compound convolutional neural network AI model, however, did not include any additional information regarding the compound nature of the network, directions to train or implement the model, or how to generate the set of biomedical data. Therefore, one of expert skill in the art would require an undue amount of experimentation to determine the correct model used in the invention, implement said model, then generate a set of undisclosed biomedical data.
For at least these reasons, it is clear that one of ordinary skill in the art endeavoring to make and use the invention could not do so without undue experimentation, and the claims fail the enablement requirement of 35 USC 112(a).
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 1-15 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 claim 1, under broadest reasonable interpretation, examiner interprets “a measurement unit” and “an operating unit” as a generic use of nonce term “unit” that lacks any specific terminology or additional structure to identify them as non-generic computer components. Under 112(f), it is not clear which generic computer elements are required to perform “measuring”, “generating”, and/or “operating” from the written description. A measurement unit “configured to” or “programmed to” would not be a generic use of “unit,” would not invoke 112(f), and clearly identify the necessary elements to perform these functions. Generic computer elements do not necessarily preclude an invention from patentability if it improves technology or a technical field. See MPEP § 2106.05(a) for further information.
Dependent claims 2-15 inherit the same deficiencies.
Regarding claim 6, it is unclear whether one prediction indicator comprises each of the stated categories or each indicator is comprised of a single category. The inclusion of “a” before listing each category such as “a follow-up treatment proposal” indicates the latter. Examiner interprets at least one prediction indicator to be comprised of a single listed category for further examination.
In addition, claim 6 recites the limitation "the at least one prediction indicator" in claim 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In regard to claim 8, it is unclear whether the specified systems are broader categories of systems or the specific systems as stated. The inclusion of “a” before listing each system such as “a motor system” indicates the latter. Examiner interprets at least one specified system to be comprised of the specific systems, as stated, for further examination.
Claim 7 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.
Claim 7 requires an abnormality probability of at least one specified system defined in western medicine; this is unclear because probability is not abnormal. Examiner interprets this to mean a probability of abnormality for a specified system and suggests applicant to revise the claim language to clearly convey the intended meaning.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter of an abstract idea without significantly more.
The framework for establishing a prima facie case of lack of subject matter eligibility requires that the Examiner determine: (1) Does the claim fall within the four categories of patent eligible subject matter; (2a) prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon and (2a) prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application; and (2b) Does the claim recite additional elements that amount of significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step (1): Independent claim 1 is directed to a system, and thus, the claims all fall under one of the four patent eligible categories.
To Step 2(a) prong 1:
Independent claim 1, recites “measuring the plurality of sensing signals and generating a parameter set” and “receiving the parameter set and performing an operation of the parameter set to generate a set of biomedical data.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations require gathering and analyzing sensed signals and converting signal values; processes that can be practically performed in the mind through a series of observations and calculations. Mental processes are not required to be solely performed in the mind.
For example, a person may gather sensed signals through observation of a user interface connected to sensors, analyze observed signals to determine measurements, and convert signal values using calculations. Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception including one or more abstract ideas under mental processes.
Dependent claims 5 and 8, recite additional limitations that “perform”, “generate”, and/or “select.” These limitations are also directed to a judicial exception including one or more abstract ideas under mental processes.
Under Step 2(a) prong 2: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Claim 1 recites additional elements of “sensors”, “display for showing biomedical data”, “measurement unit”, and “operating unit” but they do not improve upon any technology, technical field, or effect a particular treatment. “Sensors” merely link the judicial exception to a particular field of use and add insignificant pre-solution activity. “Display for showing biomedical data” is an additional element of the display which adds insignificant post-solution activity. “Measurement unit” and “operating unit” are understood to be generic computer elements. Furthermore, when the claims, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the abstract mental process using generic computer elements, then it is still in the mental processes grouping unless the claim limitation cannot practically be performed in the mind. Likewise, performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not preclude the claim limitation from being in the mathematical concepts grouping or the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
Under Step 2b: The claims also 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 judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements of “sensor” and “display” in the field of electrostimulation are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known in the industry. Applicant does not provide any additional information in the written description regarding these elements. Therefore, these elements must be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity to enable one of ordinary skill to practice the claimed invention.
With respect to the additional elements of “measuring unit” and “operating unit” and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the generality of these elements do not indicate a particular machine within the field of electrostimulation. Furthermore, applicant has disclosed that “Hardware devices in connection to the theory and technology have been well developed, and thus need not be redundantly described herein [0008].”
In addition, in the field of electrostimulation, these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional activity as indicated in the following references:
US 2003/0204220 A1: See [0023] for sensor and measurement unit; “Many sensors for sensing this type of information are well known in the art.”
US 2014/0200387 A1: See [0135] for display
US 2003/0153953 A1: See [0077] for operating unit; “Usage of microprocessor-based control circuits for performing timing and data analysis functions are well known by those having ordinary skill in the art.”
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 7, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ohkura (US Pre Grant Publication US 2004/0133121).
Regarding claim 1, Ohkura teaches a data processing system, comprising:
a plurality of sensors (electrodes 11 and 12, Fig. 21) to be attached onto a body of a subject at a plurality of sensing zones to generate a plurality of sensing signals ([0004], Fig. 20 & 21);
a measurement unit (13) in communication with the plurality of sensors for measuring the plurality of sensing signals and generating a parameter set containing a plurality of meridian signal values ([0004], [0005], Fig. 21 &22); “This device is a type of measuring device known as skin impedance method, which uses the electrical response of acupuncture points.”
an operating unit in communication with the measurement unit, receiving the parameter set and performing an operation of the parameter set to generate a set of biomedical data ([0006], [0017]); and; parameter set is ratio ES, IS, and NT; “and seventh means for associating medical data (clinical examination data) with a result of analysis of the response waveform information outputted by the sixth means (ES, IS, and NT).”
a display (212) in communication with the operating unit for showing the set of biomedical data ([073], Fig. 8); display is a data output apparatus.
Regarding claim 2, Ohkura teaches the data processing system according to claim 1, and further teaches a system wherein the plurality of sensing zones (Fig. 20, 1-14) comprise a plurality of well points related to meridians defined in traditional Chinese medicine ( [0047]; “For example, the apparatus for measuring bioelectrical response waveforms 1 according to the embodiment 1 has a silver-gel different electrode 4A of 7 mm square attached to a meridian point on a finger 4, and a dish-shaped electrode (indifferent electrode for electrocardiograms) 5A attached to a wrist 5”; meridian well-points on fingers and toes as shown in Fig. 20), and the plurality of sensing signals comprise a plurality of meridian signals ([0047], Fig. 2); “This allows a polarization current (.mu.A) to flow between the silver-gel different electrode 4A and the dish-shaped electrode (indifferent electrode for electrocardiograms) 5A, resulting in a response waveform signal (information) I as shown in FIG. 2))
Regarding claim 4, Ohkura teaches the data processing system according to claim 1, and further teaches a system wherein a plurality of sensors (Fig. 21, electrodes 11 and 12) are patches or probes ([0004], Fig. 21).
Regarding claim 7, Ohkura teaches the data processing system according to claim 1, and further teaches a system wherein the set of biomedical data comprises an abnormal probability of at least one specified system defined in western medicine. With respect to previously mentioned ES, IS, and NT values, statistical analysis is performed on a population of people considered “normal” by Western medical standards to determine Standard Region (SR) [0078]. Examiner interprets SR as standard deviation and any values outside of standard deviation as abnormal probability.
Regarding claim 8, Ohkura teaches the data processing system according to claim 7, and further teaches a system wherein the at least one specified system is selected from one or more of a motor system [0113], an endocrine system [0080], a circulatory system [0088], a nervous system [0084], a digestive system [0080], a respiratory system [0088], a urinary system [0102], and a reproductive system [0113]. Examiner interprets “increase in physiology” [0113] to comprise a motor system and a reproductive system.
Regarding claim 10, Ohkura teaches the data processing system according to claim 1, and further teaches a system wherein the display (212) is disposed in a user device ([0073], Fig. 8). Examiner notes that Fig. 8 distinguishes analyzing apparatus (2) from data output apparatus (212).
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3, 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkura (US Pre Grant Publication US 2004/0133121), in view of Sun et al (CN 110752032A).
Regarding claim 3, Ohkura teaches the data processing system according to claim 1, but fails to teach a system wherein a plurality of sensing zones comprise one or more arterial areas, and the plurality of sensing signals comprise a plurality of pulsating waveform signals.
However, Sun teaches a system wherein a plurality of sensing zones comprise one or more arterial areas, and the plurality of sensing signals comprise a plurality of pulsating waveform signals [0023]. Sun discloses a system that takes vibrational pulse measurements at cun, guan, and chi pulse positions. These positions are located on the anterior wrist above the radial arteries in each arm [0028]. Sun also discloses that the pulse data signals include frequency, amplitude, intensity, and range [0023]. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, pulsating waveform signals comprise any oscillatory signal and include vibrational pulse signals.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ohkura with the pulsating waveform signals measured at a plurality of arterial areas (cun, guan, and chi positions). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve the accuracy of pulse diagnosis in traditional Chinese medicine (Sun, [0006]).
Regarding claim 11, Ohkura teaches the data processing system according to claim 10 but does not disclose a system wherein the user device is a smart phone, tablet or a personal computer.
However, Sun teaches a system wherein the user device is a smart phone, tablet, or personal computer. With respect to the previously mentioned user device comprising a display and a mobile app, the mobile app necessitates the use of a mobile device comprised of a display such as a smart phone, tablet, or personal computer [0045].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ohkura to include a user device that is a smart phone, tablet, or personal computer as taught by Sun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to send commands from a mobile device to the core computing unit (Sun, [0045]).
Regarding claim 12, Ohkura teaches the data processing system according to claim 10 but does not disclose a system wherein the operating unit comprises a cloud database and an artificial intelligence interpretation engine.
However, Sun teaches a system wherein the operating unit comprises a cloud database and an artificial intelligence interpretation engine [0055].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ohkura with the cloud database and pulse network models as taught by Sun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to utilize the computational network capacity of big data for training deep learning models such as convolutional neural networks (Sun, [0004]).
Regarding claim 13, Ohkura, in view of Sun, teaches the data processing system according to claim 12 but does not disclose a system wherein the artificial intelligence interpretation engine is in communication with the user device via a wireless signal transmission module.
However, Sun further teaches a system wherein the artificial intelligence interpretation engine is in communication with the user device via a wireless signal transmission module. As previously mentioned, the core computing unit comprises a network module that can receive commands from a mobile app connected to a network [0045]. Network communication, between mobile user devices, the core computing unit, and/or cloud databases, necessitates a wireless signal transmission module although that does not preclude the network module from utilizing wired signal transmission.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the modified system of Ohkura and Sun with a user device that utilizes a wireless signal transmission module as taught by Sun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to send commands from a mobile device to the core computing unit (Sun, [0045]).
Regarding claim 14, Ohkura, in view of Sun, teaches the data processing system according to claim 12 but does not disclose a system wherein the artificial intelligence interpretation engine is an edge-computing artificial intelligence interpretation engine disposed in the user device.
However, Sun further teaches a system wherein the artificial intelligence interpretation engine is an edge-computing artificial intelligence interpretation engine disposed in the user device. Sun discloses placing the neural network model on the edge side for inference [0047]. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, examiner interprets edge computing herein as a local AI model that predicts and/or makes decisions and includes any mobile device capable of sufficiently running the mobile app software to perform these functions.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the modified system of Ohkura and Sun with an edge computing neural network model that is disposed in a user device as taught by Sun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve diagnostic accuracy of the model through real-time optimization (Sun, [0047]).
Regarding claim 15, Ohkura, in view of Sun, teaches the data processing system according to claim 12 but does not disclose a system wherein the artificial intelligence interpretation engine is a compound convolutional neural network and/or an expert system modified and optimized by reading training data in the cloud database for deep learning.
However, Sun further teaches a system wherein the artificial intelligence interpretation engine is a compound convolutional neural network and/or an expert system modified and optimized by reading training data in the cloud database for deep learning ([0065], [0066]). Examiner notes that the term “compound” was previously addressed. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, compound convolutional neural network is understood to comprise at least two parallel or stacked (ensemble) neural networks with at least one convolutional neural network. Parallel neural networks are generally used for distributed computing methods but do not preclude edge computing methods.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the modified system of Ohkura and Sun with a compound convolutional neural network model and/or an optimized cloud-based system as taught by Sun. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide a more accurate traditional Chinese medicine diagnostic method (Sun, [0008]).
Claim(s) 5, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkura (US Pre Grant Publication US 2004/0133121), in view of Pillay et al (US Pre Grant Publication US 2022/0139554).
Regarding claim 5, Ohkura teaches the data processing system according to claim 1, wherein the operating unit further performs an operation of the parameter set to generate at least one prediction indicator (e.g. [0076]-[0114] discloses predicting the health assessment of various systems.
However, in the event that prediction indicator requires a learning model as the operation being performed to generate at least one prediction indicator, Pillay teaches a method wherein an operating unit performs an operation of the parameter set to generate at least one prediction indicator. Pillay is analogous to the claimed invention as it is reasonably pertinent to the problem of generating prediction indicators from processed data signals. Pillay further teaches predictive features within the context of machine learning systems and thereby classification ([0122]; ”An initial learning approach may identify predictive features-feature selection to apply to a learning model. A function may relate values of the features to a prediction of disease and/or a paradigm for treatment (e.g., class assignment).”). Examiner interprets predictive features to be an analogous term for prediction indicators as they are reasonably pertinent and of a similar scope to generate predictive indicators.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ohkura with the predictive feature and class assignment method as taught by Pillay to generate at least one prediction indicator. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to transform input features or signals to better predict patient outcomes [0122].
Regarding claim 6, Ohkura teaches the data processing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one prediction indicator comprises follow-up treatment proposal, health assessment overview, instrument estimation value, biochemical-test estimation value, symptom prediction and/or caring tips (e.g. [0076]-[0114] discloses predicting the health assessment of various systems). Examiner notes that a lack of antecedent basis resulting from reference to claim 1 was previously addressed and understood to reference claim 5 for further examination.
However, in the event that prediction indicator requires a learning model as the operation being performed to generate at least one prediction indicator comprising follow-up treatment proposal, health assessment overview, instrument estimation value, biochemical-test estimation value, symptom prediction and/or caring tips. Pillay teaches a method wherein at least one prediction indicator comprises a follow-up treatment proposal, a health assessment overview, an instrument estimation value, a biochemical-test estimation value, a symptom prediction, and/or caring tips. Class assignment determines how the signal inputs relate to follow-up treatment proposal ([0122]; A function may relate values of the features to a prediction of disease and/or a paradigm for treatment (e.g., class assignment)”), health assessment overview ([0122]; “A function may relate values of the features to a prediction of disease and/or a paradigm for treatment (e.g., class assignment)”), instrument estimation value ([0076]; “In addition, the session duration may be captured and stored (e.g., at a local or remote server) and measured against the biometrics data pre-and-post the session to determine if the digital therapy dosage was accurate.”), biochemical test estimation value [0073], clinical symptoms [0073], and/or caring tips [0073].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ohkura with the predictive feature and class assignment method as taught by Pillay. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to transform input features or signals to better predict patient outcomes [0122].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohkura (US Pre Grant Publication US 2004/0133121), in view of Li et al (US Pre Grant Publication US 2021/0369134).
Regarding claim 9, Ohkura teaches the data processing system according to claim 1, but fails to teach a system wherein the measurement unit is integrated into a wearable device.
However, Li teaches a system to measure meridian signals wherein a measuring unit and microprocessor are integrated into a wearable device [0096].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Ohkura to integrate a measurement unit into a wearable device as taught by Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to improve efficiency and minimize errors and/or noise (Li,[0096]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWANE COLLARD whose telephone number is (571)272-6553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-6 pm.
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, Ben Klein can be reached at (571) 270-5213. 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.
/DWANE COLLARD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/William J Levicky/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796