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
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract exceeds 150 words.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line(s) 2, “at lase one” seems to be a grammatical error. Examiner recommends amending it to read -- at least one --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claim(s) 1-20 are allowable over prior art because the prior art of record fail to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claims, in particular: “a controller that controls, when training on the prediction model is carried out, the artificial intelligence unit to calculate a prediction rate related to the specific disease in response to biometric information collected in the collection terminal from the trained prediction model, discriminates a prediction result for the specific disease based on the calculated prediction rate and a preset threshold, and transmits the prediction result to the collection terminal such that the discriminated prediction result is displayed through the collection terminal” and “calculating, by the cloud server, when the training of the prediction model is completed, a prediction rate corresponding to the biometric information received from the collection terminal from the trained prediction model; and discriminating, by the cloud server or the collection terminal, a prediction result for the specific disease based on a preset threshold and the prediction rate, and outputting the discriminated prediction result,” respectively. Because the prior art does not teach or disclose the above features in the specific manner and combinations recited in independent claims 1, 18, claims 1, 18are hereby deemed to be allowable over prior art. Originally numbered dependent claims 2-17, 19-20 incorporate the allowable features of originally numbered independent claims 1, 18, through dependency, respectively.
However, the claims are still rejected under 101.
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:
“A server of a health prediction system” in claim 1;
“a communication unit” in claim 1;
“an artificial intelligence unit” in claim 1; and
“a controller” 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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/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) contains 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.
Claim 1 recites “A server of a health prediction system…comprising: a communication unit… an artificial intelligence unit… and a controller.” However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the aforementioned claim limitations could be implemented as software (i.e., program code, algorithms) or hardware. With regards to the “server,” the specification mentions: “the server 10 may be a cloud server“ (¶ 0064) and “The elements shown above in FIG. 2 are not essential for implementing the server 10, and thus the server 10 described herein may have more or fewer element than those listed above” (¶ 0085). However, this does not clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function of the aforementioned claim limitations. Furthermore, the specification does not further describe the structure of the aforementioned units and controller and only further describes the functions of the aforementioned claim limitations. However, this does not clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function of the aforementioned claim limitations. Therefore, the disclosure's lack of a description that clearly links the structure to the function of the aforementioned claim limitations evidences that the Applicant did not have possession of the invention at the time of filing. Because no additional information is given, the disclosure fails to sufficiently describe the aforementioned claim limitations of claim 1, respectively.
Claim(s) 2-17 is/are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-17 is/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.
Claim limitations “A server of a health prediction system…comprising: a communication unit… an artificial intelligence unit… and a controller” (claim 1) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It is unclear if the aforementioned claim limitations are implemented as software (i.e., program code, algorithms) or hardware because Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the aforementioned claim limitations could be implemented as software (i.e., program code, algorithms) or hardware. With regards to the “server,” the specification mentions: “the server 10 may be a cloud server“ (¶ 0064) and “The elements shown above in FIG. 2 are not essential for implementing the server 10, and thus the server 10 described herein may have more or fewer element than those listed above” (¶ 0085). However, this does not clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function of the aforementioned claim limitations. Furthermore, the specification does not further describe the structure of the aforementioned units and controller and only further describes the functions of the aforementioned claim limitations. However, this does not clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function of the aforementioned claim limitations. Under 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 aforementioned claim limitations can be implemented as software and/or hardware. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim(s) 2-17 is/are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “discriminates” in claims 1-2, 15, 18, 20 is used by the claim to mean “identifies,” while the accepted meaning is “makes a distinction [from].” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim(s) 2-17 is/are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected as being dependent on claim 18.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the at least one peripheral device is information on at least one mobile terminal located around the user or an access point (AP) provided in a region where the user is located.” Per broadest reasonable interpretation of “device” and “information” in light of the specification, it is unclear how the “device” (i.e., a physical object) is “information” (i.e., conceptual data). Furthermore, per broadest reasonable interpretation of “on” in light of the specification, it is unclear if the “information on at least one mobile terminal located around the user or an access point (AP) provided in a region where the user is located” is “information” located (i.e., physically found) “on at least one mobile terminal located around the user or an access point (AP) provided in a region where the user is located”; or if the “information” is about (i.e., regarding) “at least one mobile terminal located around the user or an access point (AP) provided in a region where the user is located”? Appropriate clarification is requested for the proper interpretation of the claim limitations, as the ambiguity renders the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. For examination purposes, Examiner interprets “wherein the at least one peripheral device is information on at least one mobile terminal located around the user or an access point (AP) provided in a region where the user is located” as: “wherein the at least one peripheral device is at least one mobile terminal located around the user or an access point (AP) provided in a region where the user is located.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claims as a whole, the claims are directed to non-statutory subject matter which do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because of the following analysis:
Claim 1 is drawn to a server which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., machine). Claim 18 is drawn to a method which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., method).
Independent claim 1 (which is representative of independent claim 18) recites… collects a user's biometric information…; …generates, when the characteristic information of the at least one measurement device is received…, a prediction model for a specific disease by reflecting the received characteristic information of the measurement device, and performs training on the prediction model based on the collected user's biometric information; and…when training on the prediction model is carried out…calculate a prediction rate related to the specific disease in response to biometric information collected…from the trained prediction model, discriminates a prediction result for the specific disease based on the calculated prediction rate and a preset threshold, and [provides] the prediction result…such that the discriminated prediction result is displayed...
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations noted above, as drafted, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people…following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims encompass a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to collect data, analyze the data, and provide an output accordingly (i.e., health prediction) in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps as indicated supra. That is, other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), the claim amounts to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people following rules or instructions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites additional elements (i.e., A server of a health prediction system comprising: a communication unit that performs wireless communication with a collection terminal; at least one measurement device; an artificial intelligence unit; a controller). Claim 18 recites additional elements (i.e., a health prediction system; a collection terminal of the health prediction system; at least one measurement device; a cloud server). Looking to the specifications, a cloud server having computing units, controller is described at a high level of generality (¶ 0064; ¶ 0085-0086; ¶ 0095), such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Also, the claims add “a collection terminal,” which is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., receiving, providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only provides the input data for the performance of the abstract idea and the output data for the performed abstract idea, and as such, amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. See: MPEP § 2106.05(g). Also, the claims add “at least one measurement device,” which is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., measuring, providing data), which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Reevaluated under step 2B, the additional elements noted above do not provide “significantly more” when taken either individually or as an ordered combination. The use of a general purpose computer or computers (i.e., a cloud server having computing units, controller) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components and does not impose any meaningful limitation on the computer implementation of the abstract idea, so it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Also, the claims add “a collection terminal,” which is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., receiving, providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. See: MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Also, the claims add “at least one measurement device,” which is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., measuring, providing data), which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. The combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation of the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, as the courts have found in Parker v. Flook; similarly, the current invention merely limits the claimed calculations to the healthcare industry which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Therefore, there are no limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-17, 19-20 include all the limitations of the parent claims and further elaborate on the abstract idea discussed above and incorporated herein.
Claims 5-15, 19-20 further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea and do not recite any additional elements. Thus, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claim 2 further recites the additional elements of “at least one peripheral device around the user.” Claim 3 further recites the additional elements of “at least one mobile terminal located around the user or an access point (AP) provided in a region where the user is located.” The “peripheral device,” “mobile terminal,” or “access point” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., measuring, providing data), which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, and only provides the input data for the performance of the abstract idea, and as such, amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity, which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. See: MPEP § 2106.05(g). Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Reevaluated under step 2B, the “peripheral device,” “mobile terminal,” or “access point” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., measuring, providing data), which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use. Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. See: MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not provide “significantly more.”
Claim 4 further recites the additional elements of “wherein the prediction model is an artificial neural network,” which is described at a high level of generality without placing any limits on how the model actually functions and does not include details about how the prediction rate output is output (i.e., no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result), such that using an artificial neural network amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., artificial intelligence), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Claim 16 further recites the additional elements of “a memory in which the user's biometric information collected through the communication unit is classified and stored,” which is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing, providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), and only provides the input data for the performance of the abstract idea, and as such, amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity (i.e., mere data gathering), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. See: MPEP § 2106.05(g). Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Reevaluated under step 2B, the “memory” is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing, providing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent). Furthermore, receiving or transmitting data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional elements/functions. See: MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not provide “significantly more.”
Claim 17 further recites the additional elements of “a blockchain network,” which is only invoked merely as a tool in its ordinary capacity to perform an existing process (i.e., storing data), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim and amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and only generally links the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., blockchain technology), which does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claim. Also, functional limitations further define the analysis and organization of data for the performance of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. Thus, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not provide “significantly more.”
Although the dependent claims add additional limitations, they only serve to further limit the abstract idea by reciting limitations on what the information is and how it is received and used. These information characteristics do not change the fundamental analogy to the abstract idea groupings and, when viewed individually or as a whole, they do not add anything substantial beyond the abstract idea. Furthermore, the combination of elements does not indicate a significant improvement to the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Therefore, the claims when taken as a whole are ineligible for the same reasons as the independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2022/0211331 A1 teaches processing sensor data and predicting a medical condition based on a comparison between the index and prediction criterion.
WO 2019/136110 A1 teaches collecting a plurality of sensor data and using a machine learning model to determine a health prediction based on the data.
“Deep Learning-Based Stroke Disease Prediction System Using Real-Time Bio Signals” teaches determining the prediction rate of different deep-learning models and predicting stroke with EEG data.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily Huynh whose telephone number is (571)272-8317. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8-5 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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571) 272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY HUYNH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights