DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/14/2026 has been entered.
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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 5/14/2026, the following has occurred: Claim 1 – 4, 11, 12, and 14 have been amended.
Claim 5 – 8, 16, 19, and 20 have been previously canceled.
Claims 1 – 4, 9 – 15, and 17 – 18 are pending.
The Examiner has included a new 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection because of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1 – 4, 9 – 15, and 17 – 18 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.
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a machine (claims 1 – 4, 9 – 13), and manufacture (claims 15 and 17 – 18) which recite steps of
newly create a first folder in a first hierarchy of a file system in response to an occurrence of a first event;
newly create a second folder in the first folder when first image information is received and second image information is received a predetermined time after receiving of the first image information; and
store in the second folder an image file relating to the first or second image information.
These steps of claims 1 – 4, 9 – 15, and 17 – 18, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the recording medium language, create in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. Similarly, the limitation of imaging unit, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the patient monitor language, store in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. 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.
These steps of claims 1 – 4, 9 – 15, and 17 – 18, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. The Examiner understands the invention in light of the Specification. For example: (Emphasis added)
[0009] According to exemplary embodiments of the presently disclosed subject matter, new folders are created every time when the first events and second events occur, and image files are stored in the second folder which is recently created. That is, the patient monitor creates folder configurations depending on the first events and the second events, and stores the image files in a position related to the most recent second event. Since the file configuration and the storing of the image files are carried out in accordance with the events, it would be easy for users to access required image files.
[0056] Namely, the folder creating section 141 creates a new folder each time when the first event (patient change) and the second event (start of a series of imaging) occur. The folder operating section 142 stores an image file in the last created folder for the series of imagings. Therefore, a folder configuration in which patients and various inspections are classified is automatically created, image files are stored while being classified. Therefore, the user ( e.g., a medical person such as the doctor) can easily access a desired image file.
[0057] A folder (the first folder) which is created in the first hierarchy has a folder name using the identification information (e.g., "patient A") of the patient to be monitored. A folder (the second folder) which is created in a folder (the first folder) created in in the first hierarchy has a folder name (e.g., "H290707 122436") using the information indicating the current time or the creation sequence. The user can easily know the time when each of files in the folder was obtained, and the person who conducted the inspection (measurement) in which the file was obtained.
The result of the invention is the improve the interaction of a human with a computer. The Specification does not describe the invention as a technological improvement. The result of the invention is data placement. There is no usage of the data and thus no practical application.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2 – 4, 9 – 13, 15, and 17 – 18, reciting particular aspects of how filing may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of cause the computer to amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see applicant’s specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of input from the imaging unit amounts to mere data gathering, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 4, 9 – 13, 15, and 17 – 18, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination 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 or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding “power-on” and “power-off,” the Specification only describes this event once in paragraph 33 (copied here for convenience with emphasis added).
[0033] In the case where a first event occurs, the folder creating section 141 creates a new first folder in a first hierarchy of the file system. The first event associated with a change of a patient to be monitored (measured) by the patient monitor 10. For example, the event may include at least one of a bed assignment for a new patient (e.g., a completion of an operation of a bed assignment button of the patient monitor 10 and an input of associated patient information, an update of patient information (the name of the patient, the sex, and the like), a power-on operation after an elapse of a predetermined power-off time period ( e.g., one month or longer)), an operation of an inspection-start button for a new patient. In accordance with an input operation performed on the operation interface 13 or the like, the folder creating section 141 detects the first event. When such a first event occurs, the folder creating section 141 creates a new folder (the first folder) in a specific hierarchy (the first hierarchy) of the file system. In the example of Fig. 4, in the case where an event of changing the monitor target to patient A occurs, the folder creating section 141 creates a new folder in "/echo/" (the 5 first hierarchy, "/echo/" in the example in Fig. 4). The hierarchy (the first hierarchy) in which a folder is to be created in the case where an event relating to a change of a patient occurs may be arbitrarily designated by the user.
Note that the specification does not explicitly state what must occur for “power-on” and “power-off.” The Specification does not state, nor do the claims require, what must be powered on or powered off. Rather, an event occurs and sometime later a second related event occurs. These power events could be performed by a human with a watch or be from data in a database. The events represent input. The invention represents the abstract idea applied to technology with all the benefits of applying the abstract idea to technology.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as claims 1 – 4, 9 – 15, and 17 – 18; image input or response to an occurrence, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); create … a folder, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii))
Additional Elements
processor (figure 1, #14 and paragraphs 21, 29, 31
recording medium (figure 1, #17 and paragraphs 21, 28
imaging unit (figure 1, #20 and paragraphs 12, 21
patient monitor (figure 3, #10 and paragraphs 12, 21
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 2 – 4, 9 – 13, 15, and 17 – 18, additional limitations which amount to electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination 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 or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections-35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant states, “The amended claims are now similar to claim 1 presented in "Example 37 -Relocation of icons on a Graphical User Interface" included in the "Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas" document published by the USPTO.” The Examiner is including the entire discussion paragraph of Example 37.
In addition, the Examiner is notes that the complete discussion paragraph spans 2 pages. That 2 pages formatting is included to better explain the Examiner’s reasoning. The Example discussion is split between 2 table blocks. The Examiner adds emphasis on the rationale for overcoming 101.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
Yes. The claim recites the combination of
additional elements of receiving, via a GUI, a user selection to organize each icon based on the amount of use of each icon, a processor for performing the determining step, and
automatically moving the most used icons to a
position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the
computer system based on the determined
amount of use. The claim as a whole integrates
the mental process into a practical application.
Specifically, the additional elements recite a
specific manner of automatically displaying icons
to the user based on usage which provides a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. Thus, the claim is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception.
Therefore, with the complete discussion included, Example 37 overcomes 101 because it is a technological improvement. Rather, it is “a specific improvement over prior systems.”
The Applicant states, “With these additional elements, claim 1 as a whole integrates the mental process and method of organizing human activities into a practical application. Claim 14 also includes corresponding additional elements, and thus also integrates its otherwise abstract ideas into a practical application.” However, the Applicant never provides proof that the instant invention is an improvement of technology. Further arguments relating to Example 37 are moot.
Claim Rejections-35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner removed the art rejections per the PTAB decision dated 3/16/2026.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Neal R Sereboff whose telephone number is (571)270-1373. The examiner can normally be reached M - T, M - F 8AM - 6PM.
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.
/NEAL SEREBOFF/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626
