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
This Office Action represents the first action on the merits.
Claims 1-6 are pending
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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a tool (a device), which is within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
The limitations of:
Claim 1
a big data multiple input – multiple output (MIMO) cloud library with password access for authorized users thereof, said multiple input data containing at least one component of preoperative conditions and said multiple output data containing a type and at least one outcome of a technology performed on an eye of the subject,
as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for 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 optimize vision quality in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The rules or instructions are the claimed steps as indicated supra.
Other than reciting generic computer components (discussed infra), i.e., a tool implemented by a data processor (computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior 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 claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional element of a big data multiple input – multiple output (MIMO) cloud library that implements the identified abstract idea. The big data multiple input – multiple output (MIMO) cloud library is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic server performing generic computer functions) 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.
Step 2B
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 big data multiple input – multiple output (MIMO) cloud library to perform the noted steps 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 (“significantly more”).
Claims 2-6 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim(s) 2 merely describe(s) at least one component of preoperative conditions, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 3 merely describe(s) the input data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 4 merely describe(s) calculating correlations, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 5 merely describe(s) selecting and ranking data, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim(s) 6 merely describe(s) outputting a list, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Examiner notes that the rejection will reference the translated documents (attached) corresponding to any foreign documents recited in the rejection.
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 1,3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rome et al (US Publication No. 20160364558) in view of Campin et al (US Publication No. 20210369106).
Regarding Claim 1
Rome teaches a predictive analytics tool for vision quality optimization in a subject, comprising:
a big data multiple input – multiple output (MIMO) cloud library with password access for authorized users thereof [Rome at Para. 0027 teaches for example, an application might first use a database of stored usernames and passwords to validate that the user entered the correct username and password combination, and then use a cadence authentication process as a second authentication factor; Rome at Para. 0044 teaches although the server 108 is illustrated in FIG. 1 as a single machine, in some embodiments that include a server 108 interconnected via a network 110, the server 108 may comprise multiple servers working together as a colocated, distributed, or cloud-based system (servers in cloud-based system interpreted as MIMO cloud library)], … [ … ]
Rome does not teach [ … ] … said multiple input data containing at least one component of preoperative conditions and said multiple output data containing a type and at least one outcome of a technology performed on an eye of the subject.
Campin teaches [ … ] … said multiple input data containing at least one component of preoperative conditions [Campin at Para. 0019 teaches referring to FIG. 1, the user interface 72 may include a plurality of modules, such as a first module 80, second module 82 and third module 84. In one example, the first module 80 and the second module 82 is configured to feed input factors (pre-operative objective data and pre-operative questionnaire data, respectively) into a common or different machine learning models 40] and said multiple output data containing a type and at least one outcome of a technology performed on an eye of the subject [Campin at Para. 0019 teaches in another example, the third module 84 is configured to obtain the output (predicted subjective outcome score) of the machine learning model 40. The user interface 72 may include a database 86 for storing and comparing the outputs (predicted subjective outcome score) of different types of intraocular lenses L].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine server of Rome with the data of Campin with the motivation to improve intraocular lens selection.
Regarding Claim 3
Rome/Campin teach the predictive analytics tool of claim 1,
Rome/Campin further teach wherein said multiple input data of preoperative conditions are measured for the subject to be treated [Campin at Para. 0029 teaches referring now to block 106 of FIG. 2, the controller C is configured to obtain pre-operative objective data for the patient P at the clinic 70. The pre-operative objective data may include anatomic eye measurements (e.g., eye length, corneal topography and thickness, lens position and thickness, etc.), refractive eye measurements (e.g., classical refraction, wavefront aberrometry), physiologic eye measurements (e.g., intraocular pressure, tear film health, etc.) and visual function measurements (e.g., photopic/mesopic visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, near vision, etc.).].
Regarding Claim 4
Rome/Campin teach the predictive analytics tool of claim 1,
Rome/Campin further teach wherein a correlation is calculated between measured data of preoperative conditions and the multiple input data of preoperative conditions from the cloud library for each component of pre-op conditions [Campin at Para. 0023 teaches for block 102A, the respective pre-operative objective data may include anatomic eye measurements (e.g., eye length, corneal topography and thickness, lens position and thickness, etc.), refractive eye measurements (e.g., classical refraction, wavefront aberrometry) and physiologic eye measurements (e.g., intraocular pressure, tear film health, etc.). The respective pre-operative objective data (block 102A) may include further visual function measurements (e.g., photopic/mesopic visual acuity, contrast sensitivity, near vision, etc.). Additionally, the controller C may be configured to identify and screen out the respective historical sets having at least one variable in the respective pre-operative objective data matching with a predefined confounding parameter].
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rome, Campin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cao et al (Changes of Dysfunctional Lens Index before and after Implantable Collamer Lens V4c Implantation in Patients with Moderate-to-High Myopia].
Regarding Claim 2
Rome/Campin teach the predictive analytics tool of claim 1,
Rome/Campin do not teach wherein the at least one component comprises an optical quality index of a total eye, an optical quality index of a cornea or a dysfunctional lens index.
Cao teaches wherein the at least one component comprises an optical quality index of a total eye, an optical quality index of a cornea or a dysfunctional lens index [Cao at Page 4112 Background Section Para 2 teaches the dysfunctional lens index (DLI) measured by ray-tracing aberrometry was an objective lens performance metric and had a positive correlation with the LOCS III nuclear opalescence (NO) score, Scheimpflug-measured lens nuclear density value, and corrected distance visual acuity (CDVA) in patients with cataract [ 8].].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Rome, Campin with the index of Cao with the motivation to improve vision after implantation.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rome, Campin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of PIRON et al (Foreign Publication JP-6611612-B2).
Regarding Claim 5
Rome/Campin teach the predictive analytics tool of claim 1,
Rome/Campin do not teach wherein at least one case with a highest correlation of preoperative conditions is selected from the cloud library, and a ranking thereof is defined in a multi-dimensional vector space for each type and the at least one outcome for the technology performed within the multiple output data from the cloud library.
PIRON teaches wherein at least one case with a highest correlation of preoperative conditions is selected from the cloud library [PIRON at Page 3 Para 2 teaches this, in one aspect, provides a computer-implemented method for correlating local tissue diagnostic measurements with archived data for tissue analysis. The method obtains local tissue diagnostic data associated with one or more local tissue diagnostic measurements performed on a patient and stores the local tissue diagnostic storage data associated with one or more previous local tissue analyses. And the tissue analysis data, and according to a preselected similarity criterion, the local tissue diagnostic data associated with the one or more local tissue diagnostic measurements and the one or more previous local tissues Comparing said local tissue diagnostic storage data associated with an analysis to identify one or more similar previous local tissue analyzes having local tissue diagnostic storage data that meet said preselected similarity criteria; Tissue analysis data associated with one or more similar previous local tissue analyzes is provided.], and a ranking thereof is defined in a multi-dimensional vector space for each type and the at least one outcome for the technology performed within the multiple output data from the cloud library. [PRION at Page 30 Para 4 teaches finally, various search criteria are ranked using preoperative diagnosis information; PRION at Page 30 Para 5 teaches final results 746 are, for example, ranked cases with the same selected surgical technique, patient-related results, and post-operative images, and the patient results are quantified and the optimal value is calculated based on the weighted rank; PRION at Page 30 Para 9 teaches each surgical path may be represented as a vector set. In this case, one vector set constitutes the entire surgical path, and each vector represents each segment of the surgical path in turn (interpret to correspond with outcome data of Campin)].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Rome, Campin with the correlation and ranking of PIRON with the motivation to improve accuracy of diagnostic reports.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rome, Campin, PIRON as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of CAO et al (Foreign Publication CN-111128401-A).
Regarding Claim 6
Rome/Campin/PIRON teach the predictive analytics tool of claim 5,
Rome/Campin/PIRON do not teach wherein a list of recommended technologies is output for a final approval by a doctor.
CAO teaches wherein a list of recommended technologies is output for a final approval by a doctor [CAO at Page 8 Para 8 teaches the surgical item refers to a specific surgery that the doctor selects for the patient according to the actual condition of the patient and is suitable for the patient, for example: thyroidectomy, breast adenoidectomy, inguinal direct hernia tension-free repair, cataract aspiration, coronary stenting, total hip replacement, nephrofixation, and the like (selecting surgical item interpreted to be approved by the doctor); CAO at Page 17 Para 3 teaches in the invention, the analysis, evaluation, report and other output information of the method for intelligently recommending the surgical items can be manually completed by professional personnel according to the surgical database and various data, or manually completed under the support of the system, or automatically completed by the artificial intelligence, or completed by combining a system/artificial intelligence completion part with a manual completion part].
It would have been prima facie obvious skill in the art, at the time of effective filing, to combine the references of Rome, Campin with the recommendation of CAO with the motivation to improve surgical item recommendations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
ELLIOTT et al (US Publication No. 20200350080) disclose a method for generating an eye surgery plan for a patient.
Takeno et al (US Publication No. 20200245858) discloses a device for processing an ophthalmic image of a subject eye
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN C EDOUARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730 - 430.
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 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.
/JONATHAN C EDOUARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights