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 Objections
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 “a storage medium” should be amended to “a computer-readable recording medium storing instructions”.. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-3 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 2 recites “determining whether the user has hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia comprises estimating the user's glycated hemoglobin (HbAlc) level by analyzing the electrocardiogram signal using a pre-trained second artificial intelligence []”. Claim 2 depends on claim 1 which requires “determining whether the user has hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia by analyzing the electrocardiogram signal using an artificial intelligence”. It is unclear whether claim 2 limitation is intended to further limit that of claim 1 or replace it.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the second artificial intelligence”; it is unclear whether this is the same as “a pre-trained second artificial intelligence” or not. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first and second artificial intelligences". It is unclear whether this is the same as ”a pre-trained first artificial intelligence”, “an artificial intelligence”, “a pre-trained second artificial intelligence”, or another. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 of the following analysis:
1 – statutory category: Claim 1-9 recite a series of steps and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a process. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 10 recite a system, and therefore, falls under the statutory category of being a thing or products. See MPEP 2106.03.
2A – Prong 1: The independent claims 1 and 10 recite a judicial exception by reciting the limitations of “obtaining an electrocardiogram signal measured for a user; estimating the user's blood sugar level by analyzing the electrocardiogram signal [], and determining whether the user has hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia by analyzing the electrocardiogram signal []; and determining whether the user needs guidance on blood sugar or diabetes based on the estimated blood sugar level and a result of the determination of whether the user has hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia”. These limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind or by a person using a pen and paper. Therefore, an abstract idea is involved.
It is noted that the act of using a pre-trained model and/or an artificial intelligence is equivalent to using an equation and falls under the judicial exception of mathematical calculations.
2A – Prong 2: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The independent claims 1 and 10 recite the additional limitations of “computer”, etc. The mentioned limitations are recited at a high level of generality and are considered to be data gathering/processing which are mere extra-solution activity. The elements amount to 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 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, each of the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea.
2B: The emphasized elements cited above do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these limitations are simply appending well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in 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 in the industry (see Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’I, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014)).
In view of the above, the additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process. 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)).
Claims 2-9 depend on claim 1. The mentioned dependent claims recite the same abstract idea as the independent claims. Furthermore, these claims only contain recitations that further limit the abstract idea (that is, the claims only recite limitations that further limit the mental process). The dependent claim recites the limitations which are recited at a high level of generality and are mere extra-solution activity, and recited as performing generic computer functions. i.e., data processing. The elements amount to 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 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f)).
The additional elements individually do not amount to significantly more than the above-judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination (that is, as a whole) adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, for example, or improves any other technology. There is no indication that the combination of elements permits automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. There is no indication that the combination of elements includes a particular solution to a computer-based problem or a particular way to achieve a desired computer-based outcome. Rather, the collective functions of the claimed invention merely provide conventional computer implementation, i.e., the computer is simply a tool to perform the process.
Thus, claims 1-10 are directed to an abstract idea and are therefore rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20220037917A to Lee Seung-han (hereinafter “Lee” – on IDS).
Regarding [Claim 1] and [claim 10] Lee discloses a method of measuring a real-time level and degree of management of blood sugar (abstract, Description “predict a user’s blood sugar from the user’s ECG using a learned artificial neural network model”), the method comprising: obtaining an electrocardiogram signal measured for a user (Description, “receiving a user's ECG signal”); estimating the user's blood sugar level by analyzing the electrocardiogram signal using a pre-trained first artificial intelligence (Description “extracting blood glucose spatial features from each of the plurality of unit electrocardiogram signals using a first artificial neural network model”, data used to predict a user's blood sugar level value and/or a blood sugar state value.), and determining whether the user has hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia by analyzing the electrocardiogram signal using an artificial intelligence (Description, “the blood sugar data may include a blood sugar level value and/or "a blood sugar state value consisting of high blood sugar, low blood sugar, moderate blood sugar, and normal blood sugar”, fig 6); and determining whether the user needs guidance on blood sugar or diabetes based on the estimated blood sugar level and a result of the determination of whether the user has hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia (Description, “the medical institution server 220 may provide a user-customized prescription service based on a blood sugar value included in the user's blood sugar data.”)
Regarding [Claim 2] Lee discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining whether the user has hyperglycemia or hypoglycemia comprises estimating the user's glycated hemoglobin (HbAlc) level by analyzing the electrocardiogram signal using a pre-trained second artificial intelligence and determining whether glycated hemoglobin (HbAlc) is normal or abnormal by analyzing the electrocardiogram signal using the second artificial intelligence (Description, using a second artificial neural network model [] second model being RNN, [] includes a cyclic connection structure”, “cyclic neural network model may classify the blood glucose characteristic into a high blood glucose class, a moderate blood glucose class, a low blood glucose class, and a normal blood glucose class”).
There are no art rejections for claims 3-9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANA SAHAND whose telephone number is (571)272-6842. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 am -5:30 pm; F 9 am-3 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, Jennifer S McDonald can be reached at (571) 270- 3061. 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.
/SANA SAHAND/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights