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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract recites, “A processing device is provided…”, where the phrase “is provided” constitutes implied phraseology and should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites, “A processing device comprising: at least one processor configured to execute a computer readable instructions”, which contains the singular article “a” which should be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract ideas) 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.
Step 1):
Claims 1-7 recite a device, which satisfies the 4 statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of patent-eligible subject matter.
Claim 8 recites a computer program product recite a system, which satisfies the 4 statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of patent-eligible subject matter.
Claim 9 recite a method, which satisfies the 4 statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of patent-eligible subject matter.
Step 2a) Prong One:
Independent claim 1 recites:
A processing device, comprising: at least one processor configured to execute a computer readable instructions so as to: acquire one or a plurality of determination images of a subject imaged by a camera from an imaging device including the camera for imaging an image of the subject including at least a part of an oral cavity of a user, acquire biometric detection information of the subject different from the one or the plurality of determination images from the imaging device, determine a possibility of morbidity for a predetermined disease on the basis of a learned determination model stored in a memory for determining the possibility of morbidity for the predetermined disease, the one or more acquired determination images, and the biometric detection information, and output information indicating the determined possibility of morbidity.
Independent claim 8 recites:
A computer program product embodying computer readable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for causing a computer to execute a process by a processor, the computer configured to perform the steps of: acquiring one or a plurality of determination images of a subject imaged by a camera from an imaging device including the camera for imaging an image of the subject including at least a part of an oral cavity of a user; acquiring biometric detection information of the subject different from the one or the plurality of determination images from the imaging device; determining a possibility of morbidity for a predetermined disease on the basis of a learned determination model stored in a memory for determining the possibility of morbidity for the predetermined disease, the one or more acquired determination images, and the biometric detection information; and outputting information indicating the determined possibility of morbidity.
Independent claim 9 recites:
A processing method executed by at least one processor, the method for causing the processor in a computer to execute a process, the method comprising the computer readable instructions on the processor the steps of: acquiring one or a plurality of determination images of a subject imaged by a camera from an imaging device including the camera for imaging an image of the subject including at least a part of an oral cavity of a user; acquiring biometric detection information of the subject different from the one or the plurality of determination images from the imaging device; determining a possibility of morbidity for a predetermined disease on the basis of a learned determination model stored in a memory for determining the possibility of morbidity for the predetermined disease, the one or more acquired determination images, and the biometric detection information; and outputting information indicating the determined possibility of morbidity.
Independent claims 1 and 8-9 are all directed to MENTAL PROCESSES, where nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper. In the instant case, person could mentally make a determination by viewing and evaluating oral cavity images with other data, and in turn mentally determining the possibility of contracting disease (morbidity).
Dependent claims 2-7 contain no additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas into practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Specifically, dependent claims 2-7 only further define the abstract ideas (mental processes) in determining first morbidity possibility, and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-7 are also directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 2a) Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because mere instruction to implement on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use is not considered integration into a practical application. The Court defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims 1-9 do not disclose using the result of the mental process steps (i.e. determining), for prophylactic treatment of a particular medical condition under MPEP 2106.05(e). In the instant case, there is no specific treatment in the form of stimulation/pacing pulses, drug therapy, or other forms of treatment that is ultimately used to treat a particular condition as a result of the mental process steps of determining a possibility of morbidity for the predetermined disease. The step of “outputting information indicating the determined possibility of morbidity” can be interpreted as simply outputting a value, which can be considered a form of data transmission as an insignificant extra-solution activity as a nominal or tangential addition to the claim since the output is recited at a high level of generality and therefore not significant, and amounts to merely outputting the result of a mental determination. There is no specific treatment delivered to treat a particular condition that is specified in the claims, but is only directed to a form of simple data transmission which is considered well-understood, routine and conventional. Accordingly, claims 1-9 do not disclose using the result of the mental processes steps for prophylactic treatment of a particular medical condition under MPEP 2106.05(e).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims 1-9 do not provide improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any the technical field under MPEP 2106.05(a). Specifically, the claims recite the elements of generic computer elements (processor, learned determination model stored in a memory, computer program product, computer), but these elements have not been described with sufficient detail to constitute an improvement in the tech field, as such these features merely define the field of use for the current invention by generally linking mental processes to generic computer elements as a tool to execute the abstract ideas (mental processes). By failing to explain how these elements are different from conventional computer elements, it is reasonable that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the additional elements is just a conventional computer performing generic functions (e.g., data analysis and data transfer). Conventional computer elements performing basic data analysis is directed to the components of a system amounting to merely field of use type limitations and/or extra solution activity to implement the abstract idea as identified above, and merely including instructions to implement/automate abstract ideas on a computer does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application, see MPEP 2106.04(d) Integration of a Judicial Exception into a Practical Application.
Additional elements further include a camera; however, this is recited at a high level of generality and does not appear to meaningfully integrate with the judicial exception since the camera is merely used as insignificant extra-solution activity for data gathering. The recitation of the camera therefore appears to do no more than generally link the judicial exception to a field of use/technological environment, see MPЕР 2106.05(h). Further, in the field of photography, a camera itself is not considered a particular machine because it is recited at a high level of generality and is an insignificant field of use limitation as discussed above, see MРЕР 2106.05(b).
Accordingly, dependent claims 2-7 do not recite additional elements which practically integrate the judicial exception(s) of the current invention.
Step 2b)
Step 2B in the analysis requires us to determine whether the claims do significantly more than
simply describe that abstract method. Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297. We must examine the limitations of the
claims to determine whether the claims contain an "inventive concept" to "transform" the claimed
abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at
1294, 1298). The transformation of an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter "requires 'more
than simply stat[ing] the [abstract idea] while adding the words 'apply it."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct.
at 1294) (alterations in original). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features'
to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].'" Id.
(quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297) (alterations in original). Those "additional features" must be more
than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298.
The claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited additional elements as stated above is/are recognized as generic computer interfaces and generic computers (or computer components), because the claims do not describe these features as having distinguishing element(s) over their generic counterparts, which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry.
As shown in the reference as taught by Okiyama (US 20210059534 A1) used in the rejection below, which teaches an intraoral imaging apparatus comprising a processor (CPU 51), cpmputer program products (RAM 52 and ROM 53) and learning models (determination algorithms, paragraph 0112).
Additionally, Kushwah (US 20210327562 A1) used in the rejection below teaches a similar system for disease detection comprising a camera (thermal camera 122), computing device 140 and a processor (processor 162) with learning models (analytical models 170).
Thus, the present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. When looked at individually and as a whole, the claim limitations are determined to be an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus claims 1-9 are not patent eligible under 35 USC § 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Okiyama (US 20210059534 A1 – hereinafter Okiyama).
Re. claim 1, Okiyama teaches a processing device (abstract; intraoral imaging apparatus 5), comprising:
at least one processor configured to execute a computer readable instructions (figure 13, central processing unit [CPU] 51) so as to:
acquire one or a plurality of determination images of a subject imaged by a camera from an imaging device including the camera for imaging an image of the subject including at least a part of an oral cavity of a user (figure 15, step S12-S13; paragraph 0134 – “Specifically, when the power is turned on, the intraoral imaging apparatus 5 confirms the pressing of the recording button (step S11), starts recording (step S12), and extracts an image for determination (step S13)”),
acquire biometric detection information of the subject different from the one or the plurality of determination images from the imaging device (figure 16, step S16; paragraph 0136 – “Next, the intraoral imaging apparatus 5 requests the user to input patient information (step S16). Here, the patient information is stylized and simple information such as the body temperature at the time of examination”),
determine a possibility of morbidity for a predetermined disease on the basis of a learned determination model stored in a memory for determining the possibility of morbidity for the predetermined disease, the one or more acquired determination images, and the biometric detection information (figure 16, steps S17- S18; paragraph 0137 – “Subsequently, both the patient information and the evaluation of the likelihood of a specific disease based on the image are integrated to calculate the overall likelihood of the disease (step S17). The calculation result is displayed on the display, for example (step S18)”),
and output information indicating the determined possibility of morbidity (paragraph 0137 – “The calculation result is displayed on the display, for example (step S18)”).
Re. claim 2, Okiyama further teaches wherein the subject includes at least a pharynx (paragraph 0044 – “Thereafter, the user inserts the imaging device 57 into the intraoral imaging aid 3 and images a pharynx 72 of the subject 7”).
Re. claim 3, Okiyama further teaches wherein the subject includes at least tonsil (paragraph 0101 – “When the user moves the imaging device 57 so that the illustration overlaps the image of the site corresponding to the illustration (for example, palatine uvula or palatine tonsils), it is possible to obtain an appropriate image for determination”).
Re. claim 7, Okiyama further teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the computer readable instructions so as to:
acquire at least one of interview information and attribute information of the user (paragraph 0109 – “For the determination, the information of the determination subject 7 (hereinafter referred to as patient information) input by the user via the input device 55 may be used together. Examples of the patient information include age, sex, elapsed time from onset, presence/absence of various symptoms of influenza (cough, runny nose, chill, or the like), and contact history with other influenza patients. The patient information may include all or part of race and genetic information, date and season, positional information (latitude/longitude of the medical examination location), and meteorological information (for example, weather, temperature)”),
and determine the possibility of morbidity for the predetermined disease based on at least one of:
the interview information, and the attribute information, in addition to the learned determination model, the one or more determination images, and the biometric detection information (figure 16, steps S17- S18; paragraph 0137 – “Subsequently, both the patient information and the evaluation of the likelihood of a specific disease based on the image are integrated to calculate the overall likelihood of the disease (step S17). The calculation result is displayed on the display, for example (step S18)”).
Re. claim 8, Okiyama teaches a computer program product embodying computer readable instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (figure 13, ROM 53) for causing a computer to execute a process by a processor (figure 13, central processing unit [CPU] 51), the computer configured to perform the steps of:
acquiring one or a plurality of determination images of a subject imaged by a camera from an imaging device including the camera for imaging an image of the subject including at least a part of an oral cavity of a user (figure 15, step S12-S13; paragraph 0134 – “Specifically, when the power is turned on, the intraoral imaging apparatus 5 confirms the pressing of the recording button (step S11), starts recording (step S12), and extracts an image for determination (step S13)”),
acquiring biometric detection information of the subject different from the one or the plurality of determination images from the imaging device (figure 16, step S16; paragraph 0136 – “Next, the intraoral imaging apparatus 5 requests the user to input patient information (step S16). Here, the patient information is stylized and simple information such as the body temperature at the time of examination”),
determining a possibility of morbidity for a predetermined disease on the basis of a learned determination model stored in a memory for determining the possibility of morbidity for the predetermined disease, the one or more acquired determination images and the biometric detection information (figure 16, steps S17- S18; paragraph 0137 – “Subsequently, both the patient information and the evaluation of the likelihood of a specific disease based on the image are integrated to calculate the overall likelihood of the disease (step S17). The calculation result is displayed on the display, for example (step S18)”),
and outputting information indicating the determined possibility of morbidity (paragraph 0137 – “The calculation result is displayed on the display, for example (step S18)”).
Re. claim 9, Okiyama teaches a processing method executed by at least one processor (figure 13, central processing unit [CPU] 51), the method for causing the processor in a computer to execute a process, the method comprising the computer readable instructions on the processor the steps of:
acquiring one or a plurality of determination images of a subject imaged by a camera from an imaging device including the camera for imaging an image of the subject including at least a part of an oral cavity of a user (figure 15, step S12-S13; paragraph 0134 – “Specifically, when the power is turned on, the intraoral imaging apparatus 5 confirms the pressing of the recording button (step S11), starts recording (step S12), and extracts an image for determination (step S13)”);
acquiring biometric detection information of the subject different from the one or the plurality of determination images from the imaging device (figure 16, step S16; paragraph 0136 – “Next, the intraoral imaging apparatus 5 requests the user to input patient information (step S16). Here, the patient information is stylized and simple information such as the body temperature at the time of examination”);
determining a possibility of morbidity for a predetermined disease on the basis of a learned determination model stored in a memory for determining the possibility of morbidity for the predetermined disease, the one or more acquired determination images, and the biometric detection information (figure 16, steps S17- S18; paragraph 0137 – “Subsequently, both the patient information and the evaluation of the likelihood of a specific disease based on the image are integrated to calculate the overall likelihood of the disease (step S17). The calculation result is displayed on the display, for example (step S18)”),
and outputting information indicating the determined possibility of morbidity (paragraph 0137 – “The calculation result is displayed on the display, for example (step S18)”).
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(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okiyama (US 20210059534 A1 – hereinafter Okiyama) in view of Kushwah (US 20210327562 A1 – hereinafter Kushwah).
Re. claims 4-5, Okiyama teaches the biometric information detection (figure 16, step S16; paragraph 0136 – “Next, the intraoral imaging apparatus 5 requests the user to input patient information (step S16). Here, the patient information is stylized and simple information such as the body temperature at the time of examination”), but does not explicitly teach wherein the biometric detection information is information based on an information detection sensor provided separately from the camera, AND wherein the biometric detection information is information acquired from at least one of a temperature sensor, an exhalation sensor, a heart rate sensor, an infrared sensor, a near infrared sensor, an ultraviolet sensor, an acoustic sensor, or a combination thereof.
Kushwah teaches a similar processing device for detecting morbidity (abstract – “A method and system for rapid scanning, surveillance and detection of an infectious disease in an individual is disclosed”). Kushwah further teaches detection of biometric information is based on an information detection sensor provided separately from the camera, and wherein the biometric detection information is information acquired from at least one of a temperature sensor (figure 1a shows the operating environment 100A includes input device 120 comprising a thermal camera 122 and separate temperature sensor 138).
PNG
media_image1.png
516
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Okiyama, to incorporate the separate temperature sensor as taught by Kushwah, since such modification would predictably result in obtaining body temperature to identify and track disease as well as indicate severity of the disease (Kushwah paragraph 0182).
Re. claim 6, Okiyama teaches the biometric detection information as stated above in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach wherein the biometric detection information is information detected using the camera.
Kushwah teaches a similar processing device for detecting morbidity (abstract – “A method and system for rapid scanning, surveillance and detection of an infectious disease in an individual is disclosed”). Kushwah further teaches wherein biometric detection information is information detected using the camera (figure 1a shows the operating environment 100A includes input device 120 comprising a thermal camera 122 which is used to detect body temperature, paragraph 0168 – “Different view from the thermal camera 122/RGB camera of the face and the hand may also be used to do the body temperature profiling of the individual 110”; paragraph 0182 – “In addition, the thermal image captured by the thermal camera 122 and the RGB image captured by the RGB camera 132 can be analyzed to evaluate the distribution of the body temperature to indicate the severity of the disease”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Okiyama, to incorporate the thermal camera as taught by Kushwah, since such modification would predictably result in obtaining body temperature to identify and track disease as well as indicate severity of the disease (Kushwah paragraph 0182).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anh-Khoa N. Dinh whose telephone number is (571)272-7041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-4:00pm EST.
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, CARL LAYNO can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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.
/ANH-KHOA N DINH/Examiner, Art Unit 3796