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
The United States Patent & Trademark Office appreciates the application that is submitted by the inventor/assignee. The United States Patent & Trademark Office reviewed the following application and has made the following comments below.
Priority
This application claims benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) of EP 22177153.8, filed in EPO on 6/3/2022.
Preliminary Amendment
Applicant submitted a preliminary amendment on 11/11/2024. The Examiner acknowledges the amendment and has reviewed the claims accordingly.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. When reviewing independent claim 1, and based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 1-16 are held to claim an abstract idea without reciting elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and is/are therefore rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The rationale, under MPEP § 2106, for this finding is explained below:
The claimed invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception, as defined below. The following two step analysis is used to evaluate these criteria.
Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
When examining the claim under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner interprets that the claims is related to a process since the claim is directed to a method for training an artificial neural network for reconstruction optoacoustic and ultrasound images.
Step 2a, Prong 1: Does the claim wholly embrace a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception?
The Examiner interprets that the judicial exception applies since Claim 1 limitation of providing a model, providing several training signals sets, reconstructing, based on the model of the image apparatus, training the artificial neural network are directed to an abstract idea. The claim is related to mathematical relationship by organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721. If the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a), a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis in Prong Two.
Step 2a, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The Examiner interprets that Claim 1 limitation does not provide additional elements or combination of additional elements to a practical application since the claim/s is/are generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h). See, MPEP §2106.04(d), In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Here, the Examiner interprets that specification does not provide the improvement and does not explicitly set forth an improvement but must make conclusory manner, (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art). Thus, the Examiner finds there is no judicial exception.
Step 2b: If a judicial exception into a practical application is not recited in the claim, the Examiner must interpret if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The Examiner interprets that the Claims do not amount to significantly more since the Claim/s is/state simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
Furthermore, the generic computer components of the memory recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
Claims 2-16 depending on the independent claim/s include all the limitation of the independent claim. The Examiner finds that Claims 2-16 does not states significantly more since the claim only recites the extra steps of training a neural network and not allow for output or use of the neaural network.
Thus, Claims 1-16 recite the same abstract idea and therefore are not drawn to the eligible subject matter as they are directed to the abstract idea without significantly more.
Therefore, the Examiner interprets that the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 15 and 16 are directed to a computer program product claimed in the absence of any underlying medium or other system, but a computer program product is not a method, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The claim thus falls outside the four statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 101 and is therefore nonstatutory. If the specification includes written description support, this rejection could be overcome by claiming the invention as being stored in a nontransitory computer readable medium; however, see MPEP 2111.05 for a discussion of functional and nonfunctional descriptive material as related to computer readable media.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Nanaumi et al U.S. Patent Number 9,636,022.
Di Ianni et al U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0096055.
Halaka et al U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0142400.
Kielaite-Gulla et al U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0281803.
OTA et al U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0275147.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ONEAL R MISTRY whose telephone number is (313)446-4912. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm.
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.
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights