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 § 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
The claims are directed to a statutory category (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The claim recites abstract ideas (mathematical concepts and mental processes/diagnostic identification) and does not integrate those ideas into a practical application. The additional elements, individually and in combination, do not add “significantly more” than the abstract ideas. The claims lack an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. The claim does not include additional step(s)/element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited step(s)/element(s), when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to more than the above-identified abstract idea. The additional elements or combination of elements “device” and “processor” in the claim taken individually or in combination is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea) itself because the they are recited at a high level of generality as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. The use of generic computer components does not impose any meaningful limits on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. A claim without significantly additional limitations is not patent eligible.
In the present case, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of mathematical concepts and mental processes. The mathematical concepts include the clauses: “a processor … configured with a Region-of-Interest Aware (ROI-Aware) Residual Network (ResNet)” (a specific class of neural network, i.e., a mathematical model); “classify each of the one or more retinal scan images based on a region of interest (ROI) …” (classification via algorithmic processing); “identify one or more retinal conditions … based on … retinal scan images” (algorithmic inference). These are paradigmatic mathematical/data-processing operations. The mental processes include the clauses: “classify … retinal scan images based on a [ROI]” (classification); “identify one or more retinal conditions …” (diagnostic identification). At a high level, image classification and diagnostic identification are evaluations that can be performed in the human mind, even if performed here by a computer. Using the 101 subject matter eligibility test, the claims pass Step 1 since they are directed to a statutory category (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Analyzing under Step 2A, i.e., part 1- Mayo Test, the claims are directed to abstract idea and therefore must be analyzed at Step 2B. Using Step 2B, viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Dependent claim(s) 2-5 and 7-10 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amandeep Saini whose telephone number is (571)272-3382. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8AM-4PM).
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.
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.
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662