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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/20/2025 and 01/23/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), of which papers have been placed in the file wrapper.
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 limitations are:
“a prediction unit that predicts” in claim 1,
“an estimation unit that estimates” in claim 3,
“an image acquisition unit that acquires” in claim 4, and
“a feature quantity extracting unit that extracts” in claim 4.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The structures for these units is disclosed in applicant’s specification in ¶83, “Certain stages and sections may be implemented by a dedicated circuit, a programmable circuit supplied together with computer-readable instructions stored on computer-readable media, and/or processors supplied together with computer-readable instructions stored on computer-readable media.”
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations 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 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 limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The limitations of “a prediction unit that predicts, based on a feature quantity of a prey, a feature quantity of a predator that preys upon the prey” and “wherein an evaluation value of the prey is estimated based on a result obtained by inputting the feature quantity of the prey to the prediction unit.” cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than a “processor” that is interpreted based on 112(f) in claims 1 and 9, or the “computer” in claim 15, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor” or “computer”, the limitations of “predicting …” and “estimated …” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually predicting a feature quantity of a predator, or manually estimating an evaluating value of the prey. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, as nowhere in the claim does it state what application is being performed. In particular, the claims only include one additional element – using a processor or computer to perform the prediction and estimation steps. The processor or computer in each step is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of determining a feature quantity and estimating an evaluation value) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor to determining a feature quantity and estimating an evaluation value amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Note: no prior art references were found to reject the claims.
Conclusion
Listed below are the prior arts made of record and not relied upon but are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Orenstein et al. (“Machine learning techniques to characterize functional traits of plankton from image data”) Abstract: Plankton imaging systems supported by automated classification and analysis have improved ecologists’ ability to observe aquatic ecosystems. Today, we are on the cusp of reliably tracking plankton populations with a suite of lab-based and in situ tools, collecting imaging data at unprecedentedly fine spatial and temporal scales. But these data have potential well beyond examining the abundances of different taxa; the individual images themselves contain a wealth of information on functional traits. Here, we outline traits that could be measured from image data, suggest machine learning and computer vision approaches to extract functional trait information from the images, and discuss promising avenues for novel studies.
Gallager (US Pub. No. 2017/0293217 A1) Abstract: The innovative systems and methods described herein use a high-resolution imaging microscope for capturing images of marine microorganisms and particles in situ in an aquatic environment. Using darkfield illumination, high-resolution images may be obtained, capturing features of the microorganism or particle as small as 10 μm in remarkable clarity. Utilizing an open flow-through approach in sample imaging, the delicate structures of the plankton and particles may be imaged completely intact without damage and in their natural orientation. The images can be classified at high accuracy based on physiological and morphological in-formation captured in the image including features as fine as 1 μm.
Meek et al. (US Pub. No. 2026/0023898 A1) Abstract: Methods and systems for species identification are disclosed. The methods and systems include: obtaining first, second, and third trained artificial intelligence (AI) models; obtaining one or more runtime images including a subject; determining a first confidence level of a morphological group of the subject based on the first AI model; determining a second confidence level of a species of the subject based on the morphological group and the second AI model; in response to the second confidence level being lower than a predetermined confidence level; performing a genomic test for the subject based on the determined morphological group or the determined species of the subject; and identifying the species of the subject based on a test result of the genomic test based on the third AI model. Other aspects, embodiments, and features are also claimed and described.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID PERLMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1417.
The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 10:00am -6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/DAVID PERLMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights