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 .
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 1-22 are rejected by 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical
application because of the reasons stated below for Step 2A Prong Two. The claim(s) does/do
not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception because of the reasons stated below for Step 2B.
Step 1: Two Criteria For Subject Matter Eligibility
First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101
defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject of a
patent: process, machines, manufactures and composition of matter.
The claims fall into the category of process in a computer system environment that is tangibly
embodied in a manner so as to be executable.
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim
must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional
limitations amount to significantly more than exception. The judicial exceptions (also called
“judicially recognized exceptions”) are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of,
the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and
natural phenomena (including products of nature).
Step 2A: Prong One Recites Abstract Idea, Law Of Nature, Natural Phenomenon
Claims 1-22 are directed to an abstract idea, specifically, a mental process – concepts perform in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claim 1 recites in part:
A computer-implemented method for providing error information in respect of a plurality of individual measurements, comprising:
…;
determining, whether the first individual measurements include at least one incorrect measurement based on the examination information to obtain a determining result,
and ascertaining corresponding examination error information for the respective examination based on determining result;
The limitations above are broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process, as a form of mental evaluation judgement. For example, one can mentally evaluate the data that is received, and determine, based on a judgement and opinion on how accurate the data is, and data fields should be filled into his/her mind.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does Not Integrate Into Practical Application
The limitation of “receiving check information via an interface in respect of a cohort of examinations for each respective examination among the cohort of examinations performing operations including,
extracting examination information corresponding to first individual measurements assigned to the respective examination from among the plurality of individual measurements,
compiling the corresponding examination error information or each respective examination among the cohort of examinations to obtain compiled examination error information, the compiled examination error information including information corresponding to one or more incorrect measurements, each respective incorrect measurement among the one or more incorrect measurements being assigned to a corresponding examination among the cohort of examinations, a successful measurement also being assigned to the corresponding examination, and the successful measurement being obtained by repeating the respective incorrect measurement;
and providing the compiled examination error information via the interface”, as drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, as a form of gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the results, TLI Communications, 823 F. 3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. The term “receiving” is broad, and consistent with the specification as in paragraph [0016], can include “receiving check information from a user via an interface in respect of a cohort of examinations to be checked”, which is a form of pre-solution data gathering that does not provide integration into a practical application.
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination and taking the claim as a whole, there still is not integration into a practical application. The claims also don’t appear to improve the functioning of a computer or require the use of a specific machine. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they don’t impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does Not Amount To Significantly More
As per MPEP 2106.05(II) the considerations discussed above for mere instructions to apply the exception and merely linking to a field of use are carried over for Step 2B.
Even considering these additional elements as a combination and taking the claims as a whole, they do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim doesn’t include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 12 recites in part:
A computer-implemented method for providing a trained function, comprising:
…;
providing training input data, the training input data including at least one item of examination information on corresponding to an examination,
The limitations above are broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process, as a form of mental evaluation judgement. For example, one can evaluate the data that is received, and determine, based on a judgement and opinion on how accurate the data is, and data fields should be filled.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does Not Integrate Into Practical Application
The limitation of “ examination information including a plurality of individual measurements assigned to the examination, the plurality of individual measurements including one or more incorrect measurements and one or more successful measurements, each respective incorrect measurement among the one or more incorrect measurements corresponding to a successful measurement among the one or more successful
measurements, the successful measurement being obtained by repeating the respective incorrect measurement;”
“providing training output data, the training output data including at least one item of examination error information corresponding to the examination and the training output data and the training input data being related,
training the trained function based on the training input data and the training output data;
and providing the trained function.
”, as drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, as a form of gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the results, TLI Communications, 823 F. 3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. The term “providing” is broad, and consistent with the specification as in paragraph [0015], can include “providing training output data, the training output data including at least one item of examination error information of the examination and the training output data and the training input data being related”, which is a form of pre-solution data gathering that does not provide integration into a practical application.
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination and taking the claim as a whole, there still is not integration into a practical application. The claims also don’t appear to improve the functioning of a computer or require the use of a specific machine. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they don’t impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does Not Amount To Significantly More
As per MPEP 2106.05(II) the considerations discussed above for mere instructions to apply the exception and merely linking to a field of use are carried over for Step 2B.
Even considering these additional elements as a combination and taking the claims as a whole, they do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim doesn’t include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 14 recites in part:
A system for providing error information in respect of a plurality of individual measurements, comprising:
…;
determining, whether the first individual measurements include at least one incorrect measurement based on the examination information to obtain a determining result,
and ascertaining corresponding examination error information for the respective examination based on determining result;
The limitations above are broadly and reasonably interpreted as a mental process, as a form of mental evaluation judgement. For example, one can mentally evaluate the data that is received, and determine, based on a judgement and opinion on how accurate the data is, and data fields should be filled into his/her mind.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does Not Integrate Into Practical Application
The limitation of “processing circuitry;
and an interface, at least one of the processing circuitry or the interface being configured to provide the plurality of individual measurements, each respective individual measurement among the plurality of individual measurements being assigned to a corresponding examination;
receiving check information via an interface in respect of a cohort of examinations for each respective examination among the cohort of examinations performing operations including,
extracting examination information corresponding to first individual measurements assigned to the respective examination from among the plurality of individual measurements,
compiling the corresponding examination error information or each respective examination among the cohort of examinations to obtain compiled examination error information, the compiled examination error information including information corresponding to one or more incorrect measurements, each respective incorrect measurement among the one or more incorrect measurements being assigned to a corresponding examination among the cohort of examinations, a successful measurement also being assigned to the corresponding examination, and the successful measurement being obtained by repeating the respective incorrect measurement;
and providing the compiled examination error information via the interface”, as drafted, amount to insignificant extra-solution activity, as a form of gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the results, TLI Communications, 823 F. 3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. The term “receiving” is broad, and consistent with the specification as in paragraph [0016], can include “receiving check information from a user via an interface in respect of a cohort of examinations to be checked”, which is a form of pre-solution data gathering that does not provide integration into a practical application.
Looking at the claim limitations as an ordered combination and taking the claim as a whole, there still is not integration into a practical application. The claims also don’t appear to improve the functioning of a computer or require the use of a specific machine. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they don’t impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does Not Amount To Significantly More
As per MPEP 2106.05(II) the considerations discussed above for mere instructions to apply the exception and merely linking to a field of use are carried over for Step 2B.
Even considering these additional elements as a combination and taking the claims as a whole, they do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The claim doesn’t include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and includes a mathematical concept – implies a statistical evaluation of the examination error.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, and include outside organizations, which doesn’t provided integration into a practical or add significantly more to the abstract idea because an outside organization doesn’t add significantly more to the mental activity and it’s a general inclusion of a new organization associated with a mental activity, and therefore doesn’t break away from the reasons for the identified abstract idea.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 3, and include outside organizations, which doesn’t provided integration into a practical or add significantly more to the abstract idea because an outside organization doesn’t add significantly more to the mental activity and it’s a general inclusion of a new organization associated with a mental activity, and therefore doesn’t break away from the reasons for the identified abstract idea.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 3, merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 5, and include outside organizations, which doesn’t provided integration into a practical or add significantly more to the abstract idea because an outside organization doesn’t add significantly more to the mental activity and it’s a general inclusion of a new organization associated with a mental activity, and therefore doesn’t break away from the reasons for the identified abstract idea.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 3, and includes a mental concept, one can mentally evaluate the data that is received, and determine based on a judgement and opinion on how a structure-like model should incorporate certain value in his/her mind.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 3, and include outside organizations, which doesn’t provided integration into a practical or add significantly more to the abstract idea because an outside organization doesn’t add significantly more to the mental activity and it’s a general inclusion of a new organization associated with a mental activity, and therefore doesn’t break away from the reasons for the identified abstract idea.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 3, and include outside organizations, which doesn’t provided integration into a practical or add significantly more to the abstract idea because an outside organization doesn’t add significantly more to the mental activity and it’s a general inclusion of a new organization associated with a mental activity, and therefore doesn’t break away from the reasons for the identified abstract idea.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1, merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 10, and include outside organizations, which doesn’t provided integration into a practical or add significantly more to the abstract idea because an outside organization doesn’t add significantly more to the mental activity and it’s a general inclusion of a new organization associated with a mental activity, and therefore doesn’t break away from the reasons for the identified abstract idea.
Claim 13 is dependent on claim 12, and include outside organizations, which doesn’t provided integration into a practical or add significantly more to the abstract idea because an outside organization doesn’t add significantly more to the mental activity and it’s a general inclusion of a new organization associated with a mental activity, and therefore doesn’t break away from the reasons for the identified abstract idea.
Claim 15 is dependent on claim 1, and include outside organizations, which doesn’t provided integration into a practical or add significantly more to the abstract idea because an outside organization doesn’t add significantly more to the mental activity and it’s a general inclusion of a new organization associated with a mental activity, and therefore doesn’t break away from the reasons for the identified abstract idea.
Claim 16 is dependent on claim 1, and include outside organizations, which doesn’t provided integration into a practical or add significantly more to the abstract idea because an outside organization doesn’t add significantly more to the mental activity and it’s a general inclusion of a new organization associated with a mental activity, and therefore doesn’t break away from the reasons for the identified abstract idea.
Claim 17 is dependent on claim 2, and includes a mental concept, one can mentally evaluate the data that is received, and determine based on a judgement and opinion on how a structure-like model should incorporate certain value in his/her mind.
Claim 18 is dependent on claim 2, merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 19 is dependent on claim 18, merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Claim 20 is dependent on claim 4, and include outside organizations, which doesn’t provided integration into a practical or add significantly more to the abstract idea because an outside organization doesn’t add significantly more to the mental activity and it’s a general inclusion of a new organization associated with a mental activity, and therefore doesn’t break away from the reasons for the identified abstract idea.
Claim 21 is dependent on claim 1, and include outside organizations, which doesn’t provided integration into a practical or add significantly more to the abstract idea because an outside organization doesn’t add significantly more to the mental activity and it’s a general inclusion of a new organization associated with a mental activity, and therefore doesn’t break away from the reasons for the identified abstract idea.
Claim 22 is dependent on claim 14, and include outside organizations, which doesn’t provided integration into a practical or add significantly more to the abstract idea because an outside organization doesn’t add significantly more to the mental activity and it’s a general inclusion of a new organization associated with a mental activity, and therefore doesn’t break away from the reasons for the identified abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 15-18 and 21are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsumori et al. (US Pub No.: 20200342997 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mitsumori, in view of Kano et al (US Pub No.: 20200105388 A1), hereinafter referred to as Kano and further in view of Semba (US Pub No.: 20180049713 A1), hereinafter referred to as Semba.
With respect to claim 1, Mitsumori disclose:
Receiving check information via an interface in respect of a cohort of examinations for each respective examination among the cohort of examinations(In paragraph [0046], Mitsumori discloses a process (referred to as "the first extraction function 153") within a medical data management system. This function is responsible for retrieving specific medical data (referred to as "first medical data") related to a patient (the "diagnosis target subject") from an integrated data server of a medical facility. In which the extracted medical data is intended for presentation or visualization. In paragraph [0054], disclose the first determination function (154) checks if the initial medical data extracted by the first extraction function (153) meets all the extraction conditions set by the finding setting function (152). For example, in Figure 3, when the first set of medical data includes types D1, D3, and D5, it finds that there is no medical data of type D2 available. For "Finding 2," when that first set includes types D1, D6, and D7, it finds that there is no medical data of type D9 available. In paragraph [0054], further disclose the first determination function 154 has determined that medical data is lacked.)
Providing the compiled examination error information via the interface (In paragraph [0098], Mitsumori disclose the system checking if there is any medical data available from another facility that meets specific criteria (the "lacked extraction condition"). The system then displays a notification informing the user that the required medical data is missing. This notification appears in a specific section (data display region G12) of the interface.)
With respect to claim 1, Mitsumori does not explicitly disclose:
A computer-implemented method for providing error information in respect of a plurality of individual measurements, comprising: providing the plurality of individual measurements, each individual measurement among the plurality of individual measurements being assigned to a corresponding examination
Compiling the corresponding examination error information or each respective examination among the cohort of examinations to obtain compiled examination error information, the compiled examination error information including information corresponding to one or more incorrect measurements, each respective incorrect measurement among the one or more incorrect measurements being assigned to a corresponding examination among the cohort of examinations, a successful measurement also being assigned to the corresponding examination, and the successful measurement being obtained by repeating the respective incorrect measurement
However, it is known by Kano to disclose:
A computer-implemented method for providing error information in respect of a plurality of individual measurements, comprising: providing the plurality of individual measurements, each individual measurement among the plurality of individual measurements being assigned to a corresponding examination (In paragraph [0149], Kano disclose how medical examination data is categorized based on measurements obtained from various medical tests. When a particular measurement significantly deviates from other related measurements, it is categorized into a "second display style," suggesting that it may have been taken under different circumstances or contain some inaccuracies or errors.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with the method for “providing error information in respect of a plurality of individual measurements, comprising: providing the plurality of individual measurements, each individual measurement among the plurality of individual measurements being assigned to a corresponding examination” as taught by Kano with the method of “receiving check information via an interface in respect of a cohort of examinations for each respective examination among the cohort of examinations performing operations including, extracting examination information corresponding to first individual measurements assigned to the respective examination from among the plurality of individual measurements, determining, whether the first individual measurements include at least one incorrect measurement based on the examination information to obtain a determining result, and ascertaining corresponding examination error information for the respective examination based on determining result” and “providing the compiled examination error information via the interface” as taught by Mitsumori to improve the effectiveness and usability of medical practice, obtaining necessary data and the potential for further refinement as taught by Mitsumori (see[0005]).
With respect to claim 1, Mitsumori and Kano do not explicitly disclose:
Compiling the corresponding examination error information or each respective examination among the cohort of examinations to obtain compiled examination error information, the compiled examination error information including information corresponding to one or more incorrect measurements, each respective incorrect measurement among the one or more incorrect measurements being assigned to a corresponding examination among the cohort of examinations, a successful measurement also being assigned to the corresponding examination, and the successful measurement being obtained by repeating the respective incorrect measurement
However, it is known by Semba to disclose:
Compiling the corresponding examination error information or each respective examination among the cohort of examinations to obtain compiled examination error information, the compiled examination error information including information corresponding to one or more incorrect measurements, each respective incorrect measurement among the one or more incorrect measurements being assigned to a corresponding examination among the cohort of examinations, a successful measurement also being assigned to the corresponding examination, and the successful measurement being obtained by repeating the respective incorrect measurement (In paragraph [0089], Semba disclose a technical process involved in analyzing imaging results from a medical or diagnostic examination. Generating data regarding the success or failure of the quality following examinations, detailing the mechanisms and timing of how this evaluation is conducted)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with the method for “compiling the corresponding examination error information or each respective examination among the cohort of examinations to obtain compiled examination error information, the compiled examination error information including information corresponding to one or more incorrect measurements, each respective incorrect measurement among the one or more incorrect measurements being assigned to a corresponding examination among the cohort of examinations, a successful measurement also being assigned to the corresponding examination, and the successful measurement being obtained by repeating the respective incorrect measurement” as taught by Semba with the method for “providing error information in respect of a plurality of individual measurements, comprising: providing the plurality of individual measurements, each individual measurement among the plurality of individual measurements being assigned to a corresponding examination” as taught by Kano with the method of “receiving check information via an interface in respect of a cohort of examinations for each respective examination among the cohort of examinations performing operations including, extracting examination information corresponding to first individual measurements assigned to the respective examination from among the plurality of individual measurements, determining, whether the first individual measurements include at least one incorrect measurement based on the examination information to obtain a determining result, and ascertaining corresponding examination error information for the respective examination based on determining result” and “providing the compiled examination error information via the interface” as taught by Mitsumori increasing the efficiency of rejected image analysis, which is expected to have positive ripple effects on imaging technician as taught by Semba (see[0108]).
Regarding claim 2, Mitsumori in view of Kano and Semba discloses elements of claim 1. In addition, Mitsumori disclose:
The method of claim 1, wherein the compiling the corresponding examination error information comprises a statistical evaluation of the corresponding examination error information for each respective examination among the cohort of examinations (In FIG. 3 paragraph [0053], Mitsumori discloses data configuration of extraction condition information. The types of examination results are included in medical data. For example, the data type is set to be the type of quantitative data.)
Regarding claim 3, Mitsumori in view of Kano and Semba discloses elements of claim 1. In addition, Mitsumori disclose:
The method of claim 1,wherein a first set of individual measurements and a second set of individual measurements are assigned to a first examination among the cohort of examinations (In paragraph [0071], Mitsumori disclose the first determination function (154), the second determination function (155), and the second extraction function (156) work in sequence based on the results of the first medical data extracted by the first extraction function (153).)
the first set of individual measurements comprises the includes one or more successful individual measurements that occurred during the first examination (In paragraph [0046], Mitsumori discloses the first extraction function, 153, and retrieves the first piece of medical data that meets a specific condition set by the finding setting function, 152. This data comes from the patient's record at their medical facility and is based on extraction condition information, 121, which defines the criteria for the medical data displayed for each finding)
the second set comprises of individual measurements includes the at least one incorrect measurements that have occurred during the first examination (In paragraph [0117], Mitsumori discloses the second extraction function, referred to as 156, which focuses on medical data that meets the criteria identified by the first determination function, 154. However, its capabilities are not restricted to this context. Like the first extraction function, 153, the second extraction function can also gather medical data based on criteria defined by the finding setting function.)
wherein the examination information comprises includes at least one item of first information on the first set of individual measurements (In Fig. 3 & paragraph [0057], Mitsumori disclosed Finding 1, the first extraction function (153) that extracts medical data of types D1, D3, and D5. The second determination function (155) has found that medical data of type D2 is available at a different medical facility. Based on this finding, the second extraction function (156) retrieves the medical data of type D2 for the diagnosis target patient from that facility)
wherein the examination information comprises includes at least one item of second information on a subset of the individual measurements of the second set of individual measurements (In Fig. 3 and paragraph [0057], Mitsumori discloses Finding 2,” the first extraction function "(153), which extracts medical data of types D1, D6, and D7. The second determination function (155) has identified that medical data of type D9 is available at another medical facility. Consequently, the second extraction function (156) retrieves the medical data of type D9 for the diagnosis target patient from that facility.)
Regarding claim 9, Mitsumori in view of Kano and Semba discloses elements of claim 3. In addition, Mitsumori disclose:
The method of claim 3, wherein a designation is assigned to each individual measurement among both the first set of individual measurements and the second sets of individual measurements (In paragraph [0071], Mitsumori disclose the first determination function (154), the second determination function (155), and the second extraction function (156) work in sequence based on the results of the first medical data extracted by the first extraction function (153))
the designations assigned to the successful individual measurements of the first set of individual measurements are unique (In paragraph [0046], Mitsumori discloses the first extraction function, 153, and retrieves the first piece of medical data that meets a specific condition set by the finding setting function, 152. This data comes from the patient's record at their medical facility and is based on extraction condition information, 121, which defines the criteria for the medical data displayed for each finding)
the designation assigned to an incorrect individual measurement of the second set of individual measurements corresponds to the designation of a corresponding successful individual measurement of the first set of individual measurements (In paragraph [0117], Mitsumori discloses the second extraction function, referred to as 156, which focuses on medical data that meets the criteria identified by the first determination function, 154. However, its capabilities are not restricted to this context. Like the first extraction function, 153, the second extraction function can also gather medical data based on criteria defined by the finding setting function)
the examination information includes the designations assigned to the individual measurements of both the first set of individual measurements and the subset of the second set of individual measurements; the determining :includes determining identical designations in the examination information (In Fig. 3 & paragraph [0057], Mitsumori disclosed Finding 1, the first extraction function (153) that extracts medical data of types D1, D3, and D5. The second determination function (155) has found that medical data of type D2 is available at a different medical facility. Based on this finding, the second extraction function (156) retrieves the medical data of type D2 for the diagnosis target patient from that facility)
Regarding claim 15, Mitsumori in view of Kano and Semba discloses elements of claim 1. In addition, Semba disclose:
A non-transitory computer program product storing a computer program, directly loadable into a memory of a system, including program segments to carry out the method of claim 1 upon the program segments being run by the system (In paragraph [0119], Semba disclose the present invention can also be implemented using a computer system that reads and executes instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium)
Regarding claim 16, Mitsumori in view of Kano and Semba discloses elements of claim 1. In addition, Semba disclose:
A non-transitory computer program product storing a computer program, directly loadable into a memory of a system, including program segments to carry out the method of claim 1 upon the program segments being run by the system (In paragraph [0119], Semba disclose the present invention can also be implemented using a computer system that reads and executes instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium)
Regarding claim 17, Mitsumori in view of Kano and Semba discloses elements of claim 2. In addition, Mitsumori disclose:
The method of claim 2, wherein the statistical evaluation of the corresponding examination error information for each respective examination among the cohort of examinations is in relation to at least one of: a frequency of incorrect measurements on a medical a frequency of incorrect measurements due to an operator and or a frequency of incorrect measurements during an examination of a particular disease (In Fig. 3 & paragraph [0048], Mitsumori disclose the index value indicates whether something exists (presence/absence) or reflect a binary outcome (like a positive or negative result). This means it helps identify categories or characteristics rather than numerical values)
Regarding claim 18, Mitsumori in view of Kano and Semba discloses elements of claim 2. In addition, Mitsumori disclose:
The method of claim 2,wherein a first set of individual measurements and a second set of individual measurements are assigned to a first examination among the cohort of examinations (In paragraph [0071], Mitsumori disclose the first determination function (154), the second determination function (155), and the second extraction function (156) work in sequence based on the results of the first medical data extracted by the first extraction function (153).)
the first set of individual measurements comprises the includes one or more successful individual measurements that occurred during the first examination (In paragraph [0046], Mitsumori discloses the first extraction function, 153, and retrieves the first piece of medical data that meets a specific condition set by the finding setting function, 152. This data comes from the patient's record at their medical facility and is based on extraction condition information, 121, which defines the criteria for the medical data displayed for each finding)
the second set comprises of individual measurements includes the at least one incorrect measurements that have occurred during the first examination (In paragraph [0117], Mitsumori discloses the second extraction function, referred to as 156, which focuses on medical data that meets the criteria identified by the first determination function, 154. However, its capabilities are not restricted to this context. Like the first extraction function, 153, the second extraction function can also gather medical data based on criteria defined by the finding setting function.)
wherein the examination information comprises includes at least one item of first information on the first set of individual measurements (In Fig. 3 & paragraph [0057], Mitsumori disclosed Finding 1, the first extraction function (153) that extracts medical data of types D1, D3, and D5. The second determination function (155) has found that medical data of type D2 is available at a different medical facility. Based on this finding, the second extraction function (156) retrieves the medical data of type D2 for the diagnosis target patient from that facility)
wherein the examination information comprises includes at least one item of second information on a subset of the individual measurements of the second set of individual measurements (In Fig. 3 and paragraph [0057], Mitsumori discloses Finding 2,” the first extraction function "(153), which extracts medical data of types D1, D6, and D7. The second determination function (155) has identified that medical data of type D9 is available at another medical facility. Consequently, the second extraction function (156) retrieves the medical data of type D9 for the diagnosis target patient from that facility.)
Regarding claim 21, Mitsumori in view of Kano and Semba discloses elements of claim 1. In addition, Semba disclose:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: performing a further examination using measurement settings configured based on the compiled examination error information (In paragraph [0069], Semba disclose the re-imaging instruction unit 206 is like a planner that helps change a picture taken during a specific imaging process. It turns that picture into a "rejected" picture, meaning it didn't meet the requirements. Then, it makes sure the same imaging process can be done again by telling another part (examination order input unit 201) to repeat it.)
Claim(s) 12, 14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitsumori et al. (US Pub No.: 20200342997 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mitsumori, and further in view of Semba (US Pub No.: 20180049713 A1), hereinafter referred to as Semba.
With respect to claim 12, Mitsumori disclose:
Providing training output data, the training output data including at least one item of examination error information corresponding to the examination and the training output data and the training input data being related (In paragraph [0046], Mitsumori discloses a process (referred to as "the first extraction function 153") within a medical data management system. This function is responsible for retrieving specific medical data (referred to as "first medical data") related to a patient (the "diagnosis target subject") from an integrated data server of a medical facility. In which the extracted medical data is intended for presentation or visualization. In paragraph [0054], disclose the first determination function (154) checks if the initial medical data extracted by the first extraction function (153) meets all the extraction conditions set by the finding setting function (152). For example, in Figure 3, when the first set of medical data includes types D1, D3, and D5, it finds that there is no medical data of type D2 available. For "Finding 2," when that first set includes types D1, D6, and D7, it finds that there is no medical data of type D9 available. In paragraph [0054], further disclose the first determination function 154 has determined that medical data is lacked.)
Providing the trained function (In paragraph [0098], Mitsumori disclose the system checking if there is any medical data available from another facility that meets specific criteria (the "lacked extraction condition"). The system then displays a notification informing the user that the required medical data is missing. This notification appears in a specific section (data display region G12) of the interface)
With respect to claim 12, Mitsumori do not explicitly disclose:
A computer-implemented method for providing a trained function, comprising: providing training input data, the training input data including at least one item of examination information corresponding to an examination, the examination information including a plurality of individual measurements assigned to the examination, the plurality of individual measurements including one or more incorrect measurements and one or more successful measurements, each respective incorrect measurement among the one or more incorrect measurements corresponding to a successful measurement among the one or more successful measurements, the successful measurement being obtained by repeating the respective incorrect measurement
Training the trained function based on the training input data and the training output data
However, it is known by Semba to disclose:
A computer-implemented method for providing a trained function, comprising: providing training input data, the training input data including at least one item of examination information corresponding to an examination, the examination information including a plurality of individual measurements assigned to the examination, the plurality of individual measurements including one or more incorrect measurements and one or more successful measurements, each respective incorrect measurement among the one or more incorrect measurements corresponding to a successful measurement among the one or more successful measurements, the successful measurement being obtained by repeating the respective incorrect measurement (In paragraph [0089], Semba disclose a technical process involved in analyzing imaging results from a medical or diagnostic examination. Generating data regarding the success or failure of the quality following examinations, detailing the mechanisms and timing of how this evaluation is conducted.)
Training the trained function based on the training input data and the training output data (In paragraph [0102], Semba disclose a technical procedure related to image processing in a system, specifically how rejected images are handled and reported. The output unit retrieves and shares information about the rejected images, including additional relevant data, to a designated terminal (rejected image statistic terminal 40). The functionality of a system designed to manage and report on image processing outcomes, particularly focusing on images that were not accepted due to failure in capturing the intended content properly.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date with the method for “training the trained function based on the training input data and the training output data” and “providing a trained function, comprising: providing training input data, the training input data including at least one item of examination information corresponding to an examination, the examination information including a plurality of individual measurements assigned to the examination, the plurality of individual measurements including one or more incorrect measurements and one or more successful measurements, each respective incorrect measurement among the one or more incorrect measurements corresponding to a successful measurement among the one or more successful measurements, the successful measurement being obtained by repeating the respective incorrect measurement” as taught by Semba with the method of “providing the trained function” and “providing training output data, the training output data including at least one item of examination error information corresponding to the examination and the training output data and the training input data being related” as taught by Mitsumori to improve the effectiveness and usability of medical practice, obtaining necessary.
With respect to claim 14, Mitsumori disclose:
Receiving check information via an interface in respect of a cohort of examinations for each respective examination among the cohort of examinations performing operations including, extracting examination information corresponding to first individual measurements assigned to the respective examination from among the plurality of individual measurements, determining, whether the first individual measurements include at least one incorrect measurement based on the examination information to obtain a determining result, and ascertaining corresponding examination error information for the respective examination based on determining result (In paragraph [0046], Mitsumori discloses a process (referred to as "the first extraction function 153") within a medical data management system. This function is responsible for retrieving specific medical data (referred to as "first medical data") related to a patient (the "diagnosis target subject") from an integrated data server of a medical facility. In which the extracted medical data is intended for presentation or visualization. In paragraph [0054], disclose the first determination function (154) checks if the initial medical data extracted by the first extraction function (153) meets all the extraction conditions set by the finding setting function (152). For example, in Figure 3, when the first set of medical data includes types D1, D3, and D5, it finds that there is no medical data of type D2 available. For "Finding 2," when that first set includes types D1, D6, and D7, it finds that there is no medical data of type D9 available. In paragraph [0054], further disclose the first determination function 154 has determined that medical data is lacked)
Providing the compiled examination error information via the interface (In paragraph [0098], Mitsumori disclose the system checking if there is any medical data available from another facility that meets specific criteria (the "lacked extraction condition"). The system then displays a notification informing the user that the required medical data is missing. This notification appears in a specific section (data display region G12) of the interface).
With respect to claim 14, Mitsumori do not explicitly disclose:
A system for providing error information in respect of a plurality of individual measurements, comprising: processing circuitry; and an interface, at least one of the processing circuitry or the interface being configured to provide the plurality of individual measurements, each respective individual measurement among the plurality of individual measurements being assigned to a corresponding examination
Compiling the corresponding examination error information or each respective examination among the cohort of examinations to obtain compiled examination error information, the compiled examination error information including information corresponding to one or more incorrect measurements, each respective incorrect measurement among the one or more incorrect measurements being assigned to a corresponding examination among the cohort of examinations, a successful measurement also being assigned to the corresponding examination, and the successful me