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 .
Response to Arguments
Rejection Under 101
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because they include a schedule management apparatus and an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus with an ultrasonic probe.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the claims are directed at determining the inspection schedules of ultrasonic probes using history information and determining whether there is any abnormalities. Then inspections schedules are determined so that the probes can be used for medical examinations. This is understood to be following rules or instructions to find abnormalities before determining a usage schedule. Therefore, the limitations fall under organizing human activity. As discussed below, the devices are considered additional elements. See the rejection for further clarification.
Applicant argues that the amended claims recite additional elements that integrate the claimed subject matter into a practical application. The claims generate and efficiently manage inspection schedules of the probe and achieve a practical application and improve performance of the technology.
In response to Applicant argument, the limitation about determining and distributing the inspection schedules are construed as part of the abstract idea and not considered additional elements. Additionally, the additional elements (bolded below in the rejection) amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See the update rejection in light of the amendments.
Rejection Under 103
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2025 have been fully considered. Applicant argues that the amendments that the prior art does not teach the amended claim limitations. Additionally, Billings does not teach the limitation regarding determining a second inspection schedule based on a first schedule and a usage schedule….
In response to Applicant’s argument, the argument is directed toward the amendment and is therefore moot. However, Takumi is used to teach determining a second schedule based on usage and Billings teaches determining a second schedule based on the first inspection. It is the combination of these teaches that reads on Applicant’s claim. Toshie is used to teach the latest amendment, since Toshie has a notification unit for alerting the subject about inspection information. See the updated rejection below for further clarification.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo Test
Claims 1-9 are drawn to a schedule management apparatus, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. apparatus). Claims 10, 12 are drawn to an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. apparatus). Claim 11 is drawn to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a schedule management program for causing a computer to execute processing, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. manufacture).
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo Test - Prong One
The independent claims recite an abstract idea. For example, independent claim 1 (and substantially similar with independent claims 10 and 11) recites:
A schedule management apparatus that is connectable to an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus provided with at least one ultrasonic probe, the schedule management apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to:
provisionally determine a first inspection schedule of an inspection of the ultrasonic probe from inspection history information of the ultrasonic probe, wherein the inspection of the ultrasonic probe is conducted in order to determine whether the ultrasonic probe is normal or abnormal;
acquire examination reservation information on an object;
determine a second inspection schedule of the inspection of the ultrasonic probe based on the first inspection schedule and a usage schedule of the ultrasonic probe obtained from the examination reservation information on the object, by adjusting the second inspection schedule in such a manner that usage time of the ultrasonic probe in the usage schedule does not overlap with inspection time of the ultrasonic probe in the first inspection schedule; and
distribute the determined second inspection schedule to the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus via a network so as to notify a user in charge of the inspection of the ultrasonic probe, thereby enabling the user to be properly notified of the ultrasonic probe to be inspected and expected timing of inspection of the ultrasonic probe.
These underlined elements recite an abstract idea that can be categorized, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, to cover the management of personal behavior or interactions (i.e., following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the schedule management apparatus that is connectable to an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, the ultrasonic probe, the processing circuitry, a network, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, the limitations of this claim encompass an organizing information in order to schedule an inspection schedule in order to distribute the schedule and notify a user of the ultrasonic probe. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers management of personal behaviors or interactions but for the recitation of generic computer components, then the limitations fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 2-9, 12 reciting particular aspects of the abstract idea).
Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo Test - Prong Two
For example, independent claim 1 (and substantially similar with independent claims 10 and 11) recites:
A schedule management apparatus that is connectable to an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus provided with at least one ultrasonic probe, the schedule management apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to: (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
provisionally determine a first inspection schedule of an inspection of the ultrasonic probe from inspection history information of the ultrasonic probe, wherein the inspection of the ultrasonic probe is conducted in order to determine whether the ultrasonic probe is normal or abnormal;
acquire examination reservation information on an object;
determine a second inspection schedule of the inspection of the ultrasonic probe based on the first inspection schedule and a usage schedule of the ultrasonic probe obtained from the examination reservation information on the object, by adjusting the second inspection schedule in such a manner that usage time of the ultrasonic probe in the usage schedule does not overlap with inspection time of the ultrasonic probe in the first inspection schedule; and
distribute the determined second inspection schedule to the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus via a network (merely invokes use of computer and other machinery as a tool as noted below, see MPEP 2106.05(f)) so as to notify a user in charge of the inspection of the ultrasonic probe, thereby enabling the user to be properly notified of the ultrasonic probe to be inspected and expected timing of inspection of the ultrasonic probe.
The 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 recitations of the schedule management apparatus that is connectable to an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, the ultrasonic probe, the processing circuitry, a network, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, thereby invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see applicant’s specification pg. 5, pg. 10-11, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claim 12 recites additional limitations that further narrows or defines the abstract idea, claims 2-9 recite additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and claims 2-9 additional limitations which generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use). 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.
Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo Test for Claims
The claims 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. Additionally, the additional elements, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than elements which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as using the schedule management apparatus that is connectable to an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, the ultrasonic probe, the processing circuitry, a network, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, e.g., Applicant’s spec describes the computer system with it being well-understood, routine, and conventional because it describes in a manner that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such elements to satisfy 112a. (See Applicant’s Spec. pg. 5, pg. 10-11); using a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, network, e.g., merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2358-59, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014).
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, and are generally linking the abstract idea to a particular field of environment. 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. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible, and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takumi et al. (JP2011101730) in view of Billings et al. (US 2019/0298084) and Toshie et al. (JP2016136323).
Regarding claim 1, Takumi discloses a schedule management apparatus that is connectable to an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus provided with at least one ultrasonic probe, the schedule management apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to: (Takumi Figs. 1-4 and corresponding text; Pgs. 3-4 teach an examination reservation with a corresponding ultrasound probe and processing unit)
provisionally determine a first schedule of the ultrasonic probe (Takumi pg. 6 discloses the examination reservation creation unit 31 acquires examination reservation information (patient name, patient ID, examination type) from the user input via the control panel 11. In step S2, the examination reservation creating unit 31 refers to the examination type-probe table stored in the examination type-probe table storage unit 32 and corresponds to the examination type included in the examination reservation information acquired in the process of step S1. The probe species to be extracted is extracted. For example, when the examination reservation information includes the examination type “carotid artery”, the probe type “linear I” is extracted from the examination type-probe table shown in FIG. In step S3, the inspection reservation creation unit 31 refers to the inspection type-inspection required time table stored in the inspection type-inspection required time table storage unit 33, and is included in the inspection reservation information acquired in the process of step S1; pgs. 5-6 discloses the inspection availability list shown in FIG. 9, an item “inspection availability” indicating whether the inspection can be performed is further added to the inspection list shown in FIG. For example, for the first to third registered examinations, “◯ (can be inspected)”, and for the fourth registered examination, “△ (substantially possible)”, fifth and fifth For the sixth registered inspection, the determination result of “× (inspection impossible)” is added; pg. 8 discloses in step S26, the inspection availability determination unit 36 determines whether or not the remaining battery capacity R excluding the battery usage C for the inspection calculated in the process of step S25 is greater than a predetermined value T, that is, R−C> T. If it is determined whether or not the remaining capacity R of the battery excluding the battery usage C of the inspection is greater than the predetermined value T, the process proceeds to step S27))
acquire examination reservation information on an object; (Takumi pg. 3 discloses the examination reservation creation unit 31 creates examination reservation information based on information input from the control panel 11. For example, the user displays an examination reservation information input screen 50 as shown in FIG. 4 on the monitor 13)
determine a second schedule of the ultrasonic probe based on a usage schedule of the ultrasonic probe obtained from the examination reservation information on the object, by adjusting the second schedule in such a manner that usage time of the ultrasonic probe in the usage schedule does not overlap with the first schedule; (Takumi pg. 8 discloses the inspection availability determination unit 36 refers to the data file of the probe-power consumption table from the probe-power consumption table storage unit 38 based on the acquired used probe, and determines the ultrasonic probe used in the inspection… (1) from the required inspection time acquired in the process of step S24 and the power consumption obtained from the probe-power consumption table; pgs. 5-6 discloses the inspection availability list shown in FIG. 9, an item “inspection availability” indicating whether the inspection can be performed is further added to the inspection list shown in FIG. For example, for the first to third registered examinations, “◯ (can be inspected)”, and for the fourth registered examination, “△ (substantially possible)”, fifth and fifth For the sixth registered inspection, the determination result of “× (inspection impossible)” is added; pg. 8 discloses in step S26, the inspection availability determination unit 36 determines whether or not the remaining battery capacity R excluding the battery usage C for the inspection calculated in the process of step S25 is greater than a predetermined value T, that is, R−C> T. If it is determined whether or not the remaining capacity R of the battery excluding the battery usage C of the inspection is greater than the predetermined value T, the process proceeds to step S27))
Takumi does not appear to explicitly disclose the following, however, Billings teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing to:
provisionally determine a first inspection schedule of an inspection of the ultrasonic probe from inspection history information of the ultrasonic probe, wherein the inspection of the ultrasonic probe is conducted in order to determine whether the ultrasonic probe is normal or abnormal; (Billings [0163] the scheduling component, implemented on the at least one processor, that analyzes the maintenance schedule data associated with the at least one display case to identify the number of maintenance tasks performed on the at least one display case within a threshold time-period) [0165] the inspection maintenance component, implemented on the at least one processor, that triggers a repair inspection on condition the number of maintenance tasks is outside the threshold range; [0169] a data storage device storing maintenance schedule data and maintenance history data associated with a plurality of temperature-controlled display cases, wherein the smart maintenance controller updates the maintenance history data in response to receiving user input indicating completion of a maintenance task associated with the highest priority case [0141] The smart cleaning cart schedules cleaning of display cases based on historical cleaning data (when last cleaning was performed) [0080] The analysis component 602 in other examples identifies a display case in the plurality of temperature-controlled display cases having a power utilization outside a per-case acceptable power draw threshold range based on an analysis of the sensor data, including power utilization data, obtained from the set of sensor devices. {analogous to determining abnormality by inspecting the device} {wherein the ultrasonic probe is taught above})
determine a second inspection schedule of the inspection of the ultrasonic probe based on the first inspection schedule, by adjusting the second inspection schedule in such a manner that usage time of the ultrasonic probe does not overlap with inspection time of the ultrasonic probe in the first inspection schedule; and (Billings [0166] a machine learning component, implemented on the at least one processor, that analyzes unscheduled maintenance and repair data associated with the plurality of temperature-controlled display cases using pattern analysis and generates a per-case updated maintenance schedule for at the at least one display case based on the analysis; [0172] analyzing, by the cart controller component, maintenance schedule data associated with the at least one display case to identify an elapsed time since a previous maintenance task associated with the at least one display case [0178] updating a maintenance history record on a data storage device associated with the smart maintenance cart upon completion of a maintenance task)
distribute the determined second inspection schedule to the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus via a network so to notify a user in charge of the inspection of the ultrasonic probe, (Billings [0170] a user interface component, wherein the maintenance task notification is output to the user via the user interface component; [0171] a transmitter device, wherein the transmitter device sends the maintenance task notification to a user device associated with the user via a network; [0178] updating a maintenance history record on a data storage device associated with the smart maintenance cart upon completion of a maintenance task)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Takumi to incorporate provisionally determine a first inspection schedule of an inspection of the ultrasonic probe from inspection history information of the ultrasonic probe, wherein the inspection of the ultrasonic probe is conducted in order to determine whether the ultrasonic probe is normal or abnormal; determine a second inspection schedule of the inspection of the ultrasonic probe based on the first inspection schedule, by adjusting the second inspection schedule in such a manner that usage time of the ultrasonic probe does not overlap with inspection time of the ultrasonic probe in the first inspection schedule; and distribute the determined second inspection schedule to the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus via a network so to notify a user in charge of the inspection of the ultrasonic probe, as taught by Billings, in order to determine the highest priority time for inspections of the devices. See Billings [0003].
Takumi-Billings does not appear to explicitly teach the following, however, Toshie teaches it is old and well known in the art of healthcare data processing wherein:
thereby enabling the user to be properly notified of the ultrasonic probe to be inspected and expected timing of inspection of the ultrasonic probe (Toshie pg. 6 para 4 The alerting | reporting part 5 alert | reports the specified appropriate time. For example, the notification unit 5 receives the appropriate time information from the specifying unit 11 and displays the appropriate time E on the display unit 5b; pg. 9 para 2-3 The notification unit 5 can notify the appropriate timing of the additional inspection when the same subject as the subject of the examination performed in the past is to be examined. Note that the notification unit 5 may read the examination history information of the subject from the examination information storage unit 10. For example, the alerting | reporting part 5 collates the read test | inspection log | history information with the additional inspection represented by appropriate time information, and specifies the unimplemented additional inspection. And the alerting | reporting part 5 may alert | report the specified unimplemented additional inspection).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Takumi-Billings, as modified above, to incorporate thereby enabling the user to be properly notified of the ultrasonic probe to be inspected and expected timing of inspection of the ultrasonic probe, as taught by Toshie, in order to notify the user of the timing of unimplemented additional inspections. See Toshie pg. 9.
Regarding claim 2, Takumi-Billings-Toshie teaches the schedule management apparatus according to claim 1, and Takumi further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to provisionally determine when the ultrasonic probe should be inspected next, as the first inspection schedule, based on a latest inspection time of the ultrasonic probe and a periodic inspection interval of the ultrasonic probe. (Takumi Pg. 10 discloses calculating the number of inspections that can be performed on the current battery pack on the created inspection availability list before the probe should be inspected and the battery be replaced. The time between batteries is construed as the periodic inspection interval and also is therefore based on the last inspection time).
Regarding claim 3, Takumi-Billings-Toshie teaches the schedule management apparatus according to claim 1, and Takumi further discloses wherein: the examination reservation information includes information on a scheduled examination date of the object, and at least one of information on a purpose of an examination and a body part of the object to be examined on the scheduled examination date; and the processing circuitry is configured to presume the usage schedule of the ultrasonic probe from the information on the scheduled examination date of the object, and the at least one of the information on the purpose of the examination and the body part of the object to be examined on the scheduled examination date. (Takumi pg. 4-5 discloses the inspection time for the examination {construed as the date}, the inspection type, and the area of the body to be examined, such as, “lower leg” or “abdomen”; pgs. 5-6 disclose using the examination information to create and determine an inspection availability list).
Regarding claim 4, Takumi-Billings-Toshie teaches the schedule management apparatus according to claim 1, and wherein: the examination reservation information includes information on a scheduled examination date of the object. And Toshie further teaches:
at least one of information on a type of the ultrasonic probe to be used in an examination of the object on the scheduled examination date and a type of the ultrasonic probe that was used in a past examination of the object; and the processing circuitry is configured to presume the usage schedule of the ultrasonic probe from the information on the scheduled examination date of the object, and the at least one of the information on the type of the ultrasonic probe to be used in the examination of the object on the scheduled examination date and the type of the ultrasonic probe that was used in the past examination of the object (Toshie pgs. 4-5 teaches using a follow-up appointment to compare measurement values and therefore using the same probe test types for the follow-up that was also used in the past examination of the object; pgs. 8-9 teaches using the past visit information and determining an appropriate time for the follow-up visit).
The motivations to combine the references mentioned above was discussed in the rejection above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 5, Takumi-Billings-Toshie teaches the schedule management apparatus according to claim 1, and Toshie further teaches:
the at least one ultrasonic probe comprises a plurality of probes; (Toshie pg. 3 teaches the ultrasonic probe includes a plurality of ultrasonic transducers)
And Takumi further discloses:
the processing circuitry is configured to provisionally determine a scheduled inspection time of each of the plurality of ultrasonic probes as the first inspection schedule from the inspection history information including inspection history of the plurality of ultrasonic probes, adjust the first inspection schedule in such a manner that, for ultrasonic probes of a same type, usage time indicated in the usage schedule and an inspection time indicated in the first inspection schedule do not overlap with each other, and determine the second inspection schedule of the plurality of ultrasonic probes in accordance with the adjusted first inspection schedule. (Takumi pgs. 5-6 discloses the inspection availability list shown in FIG. 9, an item “inspection availability” indicating whether the inspection can be performed is further added to the inspection list shown in FIG. For example, for the first to third registered examinations, “◯ (can be inspected)”, and for the fourth registered examination, “△ (substantially possible)”, fifth and fifth For the sixth registered inspection, the determination result of “× (inspection impossible)” is added).
The motivations to combine the references mentioned above was discussed in the rejections above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 6, Takumi-Billings-Toshie teaches the schedule management apparatus according to claim 1, and Toshie further teaches:
the at least one ultrasonic probe comprises a plurality of probes; (Toshie pg. 3 teaches the ultrasonic probe includes a plurality of ultrasonic transducers)
And Takumi further discloses:
the processing circuitry is configured to provisionally determine a scheduled inspection time of each of the plurality of ultrasonic probes as the first inspection schedule from the inspection history information including inspection history of the plurality of ultrasonic probes, adjust the first inspection schedule in such a manner that (i) for ultrasonic probes of a same type, usage time indicated in the usage schedule and inspection time indicated in the first inspection schedule do not overlap with each other, and (ii) inspection times for ultrasonic probes of a similar type do not overlap each other, and determine the second inspection schedule of the plurality of ultrasonic probes in accordance with the adjusted first inspection schedule. (Takumi pgs. 5-6 discloses the inspection availability list shown in FIG. 9, an item “inspection availability” indicating whether the inspection can be performed is further added to the inspection list shown in FIG. For example, for the first to third registered examinations, “◯ (can be inspected)”, and for the fourth registered examination, “△ (substantially possible)”, fifth and fifth For the sixth registered inspection, the determination result of “× (inspection impossible)” is added; pg. 6-8 discloses determining schedules based on which probe is to be used and for example, when the probe is changed then the time needed in the reservation information is rewritten {construed as no overlap for inspection schedules of similar probes})
The motivations to combine the references mentioned above was discussed in the rejections above and incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 8, Takumi-Billings-Toshie teaches the schedule management apparatus according to claim 1, and Takumi further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to update the second inspection schedule each time the usage schedule of the ultrasonic probe is changed along with change in the examination reservation information. (Takumi pg. 9 discloses updating the inspection schedule based on inputs and based on usage information).
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites similar limitations as those recited in the rejection of claim 1 and, as such, is rejected for similar reason as given above.
Claim 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takumi-Billings-Toshie in view of Akira (JP2018142201).
Regarding claim 9, Takumi-Billings-Toshie teaches the schedule management apparatus according to claim 1, and wherein the processing circuitry is configured to acquire the inspection history information of the ultrasonic probe, but does not appear to explicitly disclose from a plurality of ultrasonic diagnostic apparatuses connected via a network. Additionally, Toshie teaches:
a plurality of ultrasonic diagnostic apparatuses (Toshie pg. 3 teaches the ultrasonic probe includes a plurality of ultrasonic transducers)
Takumi-Billings-Toshie does not appear to teach the plurality of apparatuses connected via a network. However Akira teaches it is well-known in the art of healthcare data processing to have:
apparatuses connected via a network (Akira pg. 2-3 teaches using a network to communicate data to apparatuses)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare data processing, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Takumi-Billings-Toshie, as modified above, to incorporate apparatuses connected via a network as taught by Akira in order to transmit and receive data between devices). See Akira pg. 2.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites similar limitations as those recited in the rejection of claim 1 and, as such, is rejected for similar reason as given above. Additionally, Takumi does not appear to disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a schedule management program for causing a computer to execute processing. However, Akira teaches it is old and well-known in the art of healthcare data processing to have A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a schedule management program for causing a computer to execute processing (Akira pg. 12 teaches a computer-readable medium storing a program for executing each process is disclosed, but the present invention is not limited to this example. As other computer-readable media, a non-volatile memory such as a flash memory and a portable recording medium such as a CD-ROM can be applied. A carrier wave may be applied as a medium for providing program data via a communication line). The motivation to combine the references was mentioned in the rejection of claim 9 and is incorporated herein.
Allowable Subject Matter over the Prior Art
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA R COVINGTON whose telephone number is (303)297-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10 - 5 MT.
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, Jason B. Dunham can be reached on (571) 272-8109. 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.
/AMANDA R. COVINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JASON B DUNHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3686