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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant's arguments filed 06/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
PNG
media_image1.png
98
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant further argues regarding claim 1:
PNG
media_image2.png
102
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
100
624
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner respectfully disagrees; the claimed features performed by a processor cannot be categorized as applied by a particular machine since a processor is considered well-understood, routine and conventional in the art as proven by references as taught by Okiyama (US 20210059534 A1) which teaches an intraoral imaging apparatus comprising a processor (CPU 51), computer program products (RAM 52 and ROM 53) and learning models (determination algorithms, paragraph 0112); the reference as taught by Kushwah (US 20210327562 A1) similarly teaches a system for disease detection comprising a camera (thermal camera 122), computing device 140 and a processor (processor 162) with learning models (analytical models 170). Therefore, there is no particular machine that is applying the judicial exceptions, but by mere generic processors/computer elements of which are well-understood, routine and conventional in the art.
Furthermore, the claimed features performed by a processor cannot be considered to be applied in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. In the instant case, the claim recites abstract ideas in the form of mental processes and mathematical concepts, as stated in the rejection below, but for the recitation of generic computer elements. In other words, the additional elements, including the processor as claimed, 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 and mathematical concepts). Linking abstract ideas, such as mental processes and mathematical concepts as claimed, to a particular technological environment, such as a generic processor, is not considered practical application but merely directed to abstract ideas which are performed by generic computer elements. Therefore, since the claims do not apply the judicial exceptions in any other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, there is nothing in the claims sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Thus, claims 1-6 and 8-12 are not considered patent eligible under 35 USC § 101.
Specification
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to the abstract objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The abstract objection of 02/17/2026 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to the claim 1 objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim 1 objection of 02/17/2026 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments, filed 06/16/2026, with respect to the prior art rejections under 35 USC § 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections of 02/17/2026 has been withdrawn.
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 1-6, 8-12 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:
Does the claim fall within the four categories of patent eligible subject matter?
Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Does the claim recite additional elements that amount of significantly more than the judicial exception?
Step 1):
Claims 1-7 recite a processing 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, 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 computer readable instructions so as to:
acquire one or a plurality of determination images of a subject processed via a learned determination image selection model, the one or the plurality of determination images of the subject including at least a part of an oral cavity of a user and being selected by the learned determination image selection model from one or a plurality of candidate images imaged by a camera;
acquire biometric detection information of the user different from the one or the plurality of determination images at a timing when it is determined that the one or the plurality of candidate images is obtained;
input the one or the plurality of determination images into a first learned determination output model to obtain first output information;
input the biometric detection information of the user and the first output information into a second learned determination output model to obtain second output information; and
output a possibility of morbidity for a predetermined disease based on at least the second output information.
Independent claim 8 recites:
A computer program product embodying computer readable instruction 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 processed via a learned determination image selection model, the one or the plurality of determination images of the subject including at least a part of an oral cavity of a user and being selected by the learned determination image selection model from one or a plurality of candidate images imaged by a camera;
acquiring biometric detection information of the user different from the one or the plurality of determination images at a timing when it is determined that the one or the plurality of candidate images is obtained;
inputting the one or the plurality of determination images into a first learned determination output model to obtain first output information;
inputting the biometric detection information of the user and the first output information into a second learned determination output model to obtain second output information; and
outputting a possibility of morbidity for a predetermined disease based on at least the second output information.
Independent claim 9 recites:
A processing method causing at least one processor to execute a process, the processing method comprising executing on the processor the steps of:
acquiring one or a plurality of determination images of a subject processed via a learned determination image selection model, the one or the plurality of determination images of the subject including at least a part of an oral cavity of a user and being selected by the learned determination image selection model from one or a plurality of candidate images imaged by a camera;
acquiring biometric detection information of the user different from the one or the plurality of determination images at a timing when it is determined that the one or the plurality of candidate images is obtained;
inputting the one or the plurality of determination images into a first learned determination output model to obtain first output information;
inputting the biometric detection information of the user and the first output information into a second learned determination output model to obtain second output information; and
outputting a possibility of morbidity for a predetermined disease based on at least the second output information.
Independent claims 1 and 8-9 are all directed to abstract ideas, specifically to mental processes and to mathematical concepts.
MENTAL PROCESSES: Claims 1 and 8-9 are 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, a human can mentally process and select images by mentally analyzing and choosing candidate images. A human can mentally determine a timing when an image is obtained by observing and mentally analyzing the time an image is received.
MATHEMATICAL CONCEPTS: Claims and 8-9 are directed to mathematical concepts, including inputting images into a first learned determination output model and inputting biometric detection information of the user and first output information into a second learned determination output model, where learned determination output models comprise of mathematical models/algorithms used to process data.
Dependent claims 2-6, and 10-12 contain no additional elements that integrate the abstract ideas into practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, the dependent claims 2-6, and 10-12 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 1-6 and 8-12 do not disclose using the result of the mental process steps or mathematical concepts, 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, radiation therapy, or other forms of treatment that is ultimately used to treat a particular condition as a result of the mental process and mathematical concepts as stated above. The step of “outputting a possibility of morbidity…” can be interpreted as simply outputting a value for display, which can be considered a mere form of data transmission and would be considered 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. 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 1-6 and 8-12 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 1-6 and 8-12 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. 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 2-6 and 10-12 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) which teaches an intraoral imaging apparatus comprising a processor (CPU 51), computer program products (RAM 52 and ROM 53) and learning models (determination algorithms, paragraph 0112).
Additionally, Kushwah (US 20210327562 A1), which 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 1-6 and 8-12 are not patent eligible under 35 USC § 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 8-12 are allowable -over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record fails to anticipate and/or render obvious to the claimed invention of claims 1 and 8-9 in their entireties, including at least to a processing device comprising at least one processor configured to execute computer readable instructions so as to: acquire biometric detection information of the user different from the one or the plurality of determination images at a timing when it is determined that the one or the plurality of candidate images is obtained, input the one or the plurality of determination images into a first learned determination output model to obtain first output information; input the biometric detection information of the user and the first output information into a second learned determination output model to obtain second output information; and output a possibility of morbidity for a predetermined disease based on at least the second output information, in combination with the other limitations of the claims. Dependent claims 2-6 and 10-12 are further allowed for their dependencies to independent claims 1 and 8-9.
Closest prior art is considered to be Okiyama (US 20210059534 A1 – hereinafter Okiyama), which teaches a processing device (abstract; intraoral imaging apparatus 5), comprising: at least one processor configured to execute a computer readable instruction (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”),
And determine a possibility of 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 (paragraph 0137 – “The calculation result is displayed on the display, for example (step S18)”).
PNG
media_image4.png
304
360
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Other pertinent prior art includes Sekaric (US 20240032853 A1 – hereinafter Sekaric), which teaches using predictive models using biometric sensing (abstract – “A computerized system for measuring and/or detecting responses or conditions in human beings based on data from wearable sensors worn in a natural free-living context”; paragraph 0014 – “The approaches provided herein generate a personalized (also referred to as “individualized”) baseline model of tandem vital sign behavior, typically based on one to several days of vital signs collected from the individual”) to predict and prevent conditions such as morbidity (paragraph 0041 – “For identifying an individual's unique response after receiving a vaccine, many known and unknown factors can influence a person's response to a vaccine. Known factors include age, sex, and co-morbidities, especially conditions/treatments affecting the immune system”; paragraph 0043 – “For many individuals, such as those who are immunocompromised, the earliest possible detection of infection can be lifesaving. For others, early detection can prevent re-hospitalization and significant morbidities”).
However, none of the cited references include teachings directed to a processor configured to execute computer readable instructions so as to: acquire biometric detection information of the user different from the one or the plurality of determination images at a timing when it is determined that the one or the plurality of candidate images is obtained, input the one or the plurality of determination images into a first learned determination output model to obtain first output information; input the biometric detection information of the user and the first output information into a second learned determination output model to obtain second output information; and output a possibility of morbidity for a predetermined disease based on at least the second output information, as stated above in combination with the other limitations of independent claims 1 and 8-9.
Claims 1-6, and 8-12 remain rejected under 35 USC § 101 as stated above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights