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 .
Detailed Action:
Regarding 101:
The Applicant makes several unpersuasive assertions and arguments regarding patent eligible subject matter. The main rationale are that (1) because the temperature is being taken by a temperature sensor it has a practical application that isn’t subject to a mental process; and (2) an improvement in downstream processing tasks, such as, searching. Both are not persuasive to the Examiner.
Regarding the first assertions/argument the temperature sensor is not doing anything beyond the routine and conventional works of a temperature sensor. It is merely taking the temperature. Moreover, the mental process maybe aided by a computing device, which would be here the temperature sensor. This computing device doesn’t take away from the directive of the claims that they are within the realm of a mental process.
Regarding the second assertion/argument that the claims improve processing tasks, such as, searching, that Examiner found no evidence of that within the claims themselves. The Examiner would like the Applicant to point to exactly where in the claims is the improvement with further clarity.
Regarding 103:
The Applicant has amended the claims. The Examiner has updated, but maintained the rejection with citations within the prior art below. See below for further detail.
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 17,23-33, 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 17 is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Specifically, they recite the abstract idea of a mental process.
PART I. 2A-PRONG ONE (IDENTIFY THE ABSTRACT IDEAS)
The Alice framework, step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
Claims 17,23-33, 36-40 are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process. Specifically, the claims are directed to the analysis of a workflow of a scientific method.
A mental process includes, but is not limited to, concepts that can be performed in the human mind. This includes observing, evaluating, judging or forming an opinion. The limitations of the Applicant are determined a mental process.
Under step 2A-Prong One (part 1 of Mayo test), here, the claimed invention in claims 16 and 17 are 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. Accordingly, the claims are directed to a mental process, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
PART I. 2A-PRONG TWO (ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS THAT INTEGRATE THE JUDICIAL EXCEPTION INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION)
Under step 2A-Prong two (part 1 of Mayo test), this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A.
The claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of, “temperature sensor…individual images…video recording...” which is pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, and as an ordered combination, each of the additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (See, MPEP 2106.05(f)) Here, the video and sensor functioning as a computing device.
As a result, Examiner asserts that the dependent claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea. Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
PART II. DETERMINE WHETHER ANY ELEMENT, OR COMBINATION, AMOUNTS TO “SIGNIFICANTLY MORE” THAN THE ABSTRACT IDEA ITSELF
The Alice framework, we turn to step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) to determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more" than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of: “…temperature sensor…video recording…individual images…”Examiner asserts that these do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because each of the additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (See, MPEP 2106.05(f) Here, the sensor, video recording, and images are functioning as the computing device.
This is evidenced by the Applicant’s Specification on page 7-8, wherein the sensor and video recordings and images are made on commercially available items. Furthermore, they do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
The dependent claims, claims do not independently overcome 101, and are therefore, rejected based on their dependency of claim 17. The dependent claims alone or in combination recite similar elements which have already been found to be non-patent eligible. Furthermore, they do not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as discussed above.
Thus, all the claims are rejected under 101.
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.
Claims 17, 23-33 and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL-Scholl in view of Wei et al. (US Pub. No. 20200265273) (hereinafter, Wei).
As per claim 16,
NPL-Scholl teaches,
a method for logging a scientific experimental workflow,
(See, Abstract)
Recording over the course of the workflow a video recording, comprising a multiplicity of successive individual images, of at least parts of a workspace in which the workflow is being executed, at the same time, the video recording is being recorded, recording values of parameters involved in the workflow…
(See, pages 591-592- Google Glasses Section, wherein the prior art is discussing the workflow of an experiment, here being DNA extraction, via video recording)
Npl-Scholl does not explicitly teach, however, Wei, does teach,
…wherein one of the parameters is a temperature measured by a temperature sensor,
(Paragraph 292, noting “…The video feed may be referred to as medical or surgical data. An example camera 30 is a laparoscopic or procedural view camera resident in the surgical unit, ICU, emergency unit or clinical intervention units. Example video hardware includes a distribution amplifier for signal splitting of Laparoscopic cameras. The hardware units 20 can have audio devices 32 mounted within the surgical unit, ICU, emergency unit or clinical intervention units to provide audio feeds as another example of medical or surgical data. Example sensors 34 installed or utilized in a surgical unit, ICU, emergency unit or clinical intervention units include but not limited to: environmental sensors (e.g., temperature...”)
Wei generally teaches video processing, object detection, and object recognition, while NPL-Scholl gives an application of glasses worn during scientific experiments for recording and workflow purposes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Wei within the invention of NPL-Scholl with the motivation of discussing and showing the need for a wearable hands-free system (see, NPL-Scholl Abstract) for scientific workflow experiments.
NPL-Scholl teaches,
storing the video recording and each individual parameter as separate data sets are stored in a digital data bank,
(pages 593 read in light of 591-592, wherein the prior art discussing video recording going into database)
wherein the data sets contain the individual images of the video recording and the values of the parameters over time assigned to a common reference time, so that at each timepoint there is clear temporal association between the individual images of the video recording and the values of the parameters, and
(Fig. 5 and page 593, noting “These actions, extracted from a protocol’s description, will then be used to extract time-codes than can index such continuous recordings - serving as the cues to navigate these recordings and providing guidance just-in-time…”)
wherein at least the data sets of the parameters are stored in a searchable form; searching the data sets of the parameters for parameter events at which a parameter exhibits a searched value or a searched change
(Page 598, noting . “…Provisions to avoid cross-contamination through shared lab equipment (e.g. flasks, pipettes) could be extended by recording their usage, which would also allow tracing back contaminations after they have been detected. Retrieval and editing of the workflows after a completed experiment, would provide an extra possibility for the biologist to reflect on the results in detail. A recording infrastructure, such as the one presented in this paper, can be extended to provide a memory extension, detected actions, protocol steps, or used tools can serve as searchable cues for other recordings like video or audio…”)
Visually displaying the values of at least selected parameters present at the timepoint of a searched parameter event or present in a time period that includes the timepoint of the searched parameter event and visually displaying the images of the video recording in temporal association with one another wherein for selected parameters target values of those parameters are stored as data sets in the data bank and visually displayed together with the recorded actual values of those parameters.
(Fig. 5 and corresponding text)
As per claim 19, Noting Objection
NPL-Scholl teaches,
the method according to claim 16, wherein the variations in the values of at least selected parameters over time, if applicable together with their corresponding target values, are visually displayed, especially in the form of rows of numbers, in tracks arranged one next to the other or one below the other
(Fig. 5 and corresponding text).
As per claim 21,
NPL-Scholl teaches,
the method according to claim 17, wherein two or more video recordings of the workspace are made from different viewing angles or in different wavelength ranges and stored as separate data sets
(Page 591, section “The Wrist Worn Unit” discussing the prior art use of glasses that have various wavelengths; see also, page 593 discussing the prior art invention consists of using worn glasses that are worn by multiple (ex. 20) participants, thus, understanding it would have different viewing angles and each data set was stored).
As per claim 23,
NPL-Scholl teaches,
the method according to claim 17, wherein the values of at least selected parameters, together with the respective timepoint, are input into the data bank automatically or manually by a user
(Page 593)
As per claim 24,
NPL-Scholl teaches,
the method according to claim 17, wherein observations recorded in text form or, preferably parameterized, acoustic recordings by a user are stored as separate data sets
(Page 593).
As per claim 25,
NPL-Scholl teaches,
the method according to claim 17, wherein at least one video recording is made and recorded in the visible spectral range.
(Page 593-the video recording itself)
As per claim 26,
NPL-Scholl teaches,
The method according to claim 17, wherein a video recording is made and recorded in the UV or IR spectral range.
(Page 593, noting this is similar to Applicant’s discussion of the invention in the Specification on page 8 line 1 of Applicant’s Specification).
As per claim 27,
NPL-Scholl does not teach; however, Wei does teach,
The method according to claim 17, wherein a parameter contains radiation values such as radioactivity or X-ray radiation, magnetic field values, airflow values or ultrasound measured values.
(paragraph 292)
Wei generally teaches video processing, object detection, and object recognition, while NPL-Scholl gives an application of glasses worn during scientific experiments for recording and workflow purposes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Wei within the invention of NPL-Scholl with the motivation of discussing and showing the need for a wearable hands-free system (see, NPL-Scholl Abstract) for scientific workflow experiments.
As per claim 28,
NPL-Scholl teaches,
The method according to claim 17, wherein the video recording or video recordings is or are searched for specific image contents or changes therein using an image- recognition method and preferably the values of at least selected parameters temporally associated with the occurrence of the searched image contents or changes therein or with a selectable time period around the occurrence of the searched image contents or changes therein and the images of the video recording are visually displayed in temporal association with one another.
(Page 598)
As per claim 29,
NPL-Scholl teaches,
the method according to claim 17, wherein planning data of the scientific experimental workflow are stored as a dedicated data set or dedicated data sets
(Page 593).
As per claim 30,
NPL-Scholl teaches,
the method according to claim 17, wherein for two or more comparable scientific experimental workflows, over the course of each workflow at least one video recording of at least parts of a workspace in which the respective workflow is being executed and, at the same time, values of parameters relevant to the respective workflow are recorded and stored in searchable form as separate data sets in a digital data bank
(Fig. 4 with corresponding text and page 593).
As per claims 31-33 and 36:
These claims disclose similar limitations as above, but in a condensed form. The claim limitations above disclose the condensed form as well. Therefore, the claims are rejected based on the prior arts teachings/disclosure of all limitations set forth.
As per claim 34,
NPL-Scholl teaches,
the method according to claim 17, wherein two or
more video recordings of the workspace are made from different viewing angles and in different wavelength ranges and stored as separate data sets.
(page 591, section “The Wrist Worn Unit” discussing the prior art use of glasses that have various wavelengths; see also, page 593 discussing the prior art invention consists of using worn glasses that are worn by multiple (ex. 20) participants, thus, understanding it would have different viewing angles and each data set was stored).
As per claim 35,
Npl-Scholl teaches,
the method according to claim 17, wherein two or
more video recordings of the workspace are made in different wavelength ranges and stored as
separate data sets and wherein an at least partly overlaid display of the recorded workspace is
generated from those data sets and visually displayed
(Fig. 5 with claim 34 notations).
As per claim 37, (New)
NPL-Scholl teaches,
The method according to claim 17, wherein universal time UTC or international atomic time TAI is used as a common reference time
(Fig. 5, page 595, noting time in minutes)
As per claim 38, (New)
NPL-Scholl teaches,
The method according to claim 24, wherein the acoustic recordings are parameterized.
(page 593).
As per claim 39, (New)
Npl-Scholl teaches,
The method according to claim 17, wherein data sets are provided with commentaries
(page 593)
As per claim 40, (New)
NPL-Scholl teaches,
The method according to claim 30, wherein the values of parameters relevant to the respective workflow recorded and stored in searchable form as separate data sets in the digital data bank are visually displayed together in temporal association with one another
(Fig. 4 with corresponding text and see also page 593).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZAHRA ELKASSABGI whose telephone number is (571)270-7943. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 11:30 to 8:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rob Wu can be reached at 571.272.6045. 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.
ZAHRA . ELKASSABGI
Examiner
Art Unit 3623
/RUTAO WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3623