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 § 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, 3-7, 9-11, 13-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/093163 A2 to Varaklis in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0036684 to Hood et al. in further view of U.S. Patent 10,714,213 Stern
As to claims 1, 11, and 16 Varaklis discloses a computer-implemented method comprising:
providing a medical dataset with data of a plurality of patients and pertaining to at least one disease (Varaklis claim 1 see clinical research data and [0022] see data associated with single or multiple medical conditions) wherein the data of the plurality of patients comprises data of a first sub-group of patients and a second sub-group of patients (Varaklis [0018];
associating the data in the dataset with corresponding parts of the human body, to which the data pertains (Varaklis [0031] see additional information presented in response to selecting an anatomical component);
displaying, on a display device, a graphical representation of the human body or of a part of the human body (Varaklis [0031] see additional information presented in response to selecting an anatomical component);
displaying, on the display device, a plurality of activatable buttons associated with different parts of said graphical representation (Varaklis [0031] see additional information presented in response to selecting an anatomical component);
receiving a user input activating one of the plurality of activatable buttons (Varaklis [0031] see additional information presented in response to selecting an anatomical component); and
based on the activation, displaying, on the display device, a graphical representation of the data associated with that part of the human body, to which the activatable button activated by the user input pertains (Varaklis [0031] see additional information presented in response to selecting an anatomical component);
However, Varaklis does not explicitly teach wherein associating the data in the medical dataset with corresponding parts of the human body, to which the data pertains comprises:
Providing for data of each patient at least one matrix, elements of the matrix being each associated with a predetermined part of the human body; and
Entering at least a part of the data derived from said data into the at least one matrix.
Hood discloses:
wherein associating the data in the medical dataset with corresponding parts of the human body, to which the data pertains comprises:
Providing for data of each patient at least one matrix, elements of the matrix being each associated with a predetermined part of the human body (Hood [0041] and [0050]); and
Entering at least a part of the data derived from said data into the at least one matrix (Hood [0041] and [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the at the time of the effective filing of the invention by applicant too utilize the matrix based data manipulation as taught by Hood in the system of Varaklis to improve the speed and ease of use of data entry.
However, Hood and Varaklis do not explicitly teach wherein the data of the plurality of patients comprises data of a first patient and data of a second patient, entering data of each patient into at least one matrix, and wherein the graphical representation of the data associated with that part of the human body is determined based on the at least one matrix for each patient of the plurality of patients including a first matrix based on data of the first patient and a second matrix based on data of the second patient.
Stern discloses wherein the data of the plurality of patients comprises data of a first patient and data of a second patient, entering data of each patient into at least one matrix, and wherein the graphical representation of the data associated with that part of the human body is determined based on the at least one matrix for each patient of the plurality of patients including a first matrix based on data of the first patient and a second matrix based on data of the second patient (Stern figures 11 and 12 (see new and existing patient matrix) and column 47 lines 1-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention by applicant to utilize the system for multiple patients as in Stern in the system of Hood and Varaklis to reduce costs associated with multiple systems.
While Varaklis teaches displaying a graphical representation comprising at least one chart that visually compares data from the first sub-group of patients with data from the second sub-group of patients, said visually compared data pertaining to a medical condition associated with a part of the human body (Varaklis [0018] see “Additionally, side-by-side presentations of multiple sets of subject may be provided. For example, one set of subjects can depict a baseline or placebo set for comparison. Additionally, or alternatively, multiple sets can each depict different therapies, such as different drugs, different dosages of the same drug, or different routes of administration of the same or different drugs.” Examiner notes that the broadest reasonable interpretation of chart includes diagrams which include the anatomical diagrams (avatars) of Varaklis). However, Stern, Hood, and Varaklis do not explicitly teach based on the activation (associated with different parts of the human body) displaying this particular data. However, it would have been a matter of simple substitution to replace the displayed additional information presented in response to selecting an anatomical component [0031] with the side-by-side presentations of multiple sets of subjects depicting different therapies, such as different drugs, different dosages of the same drug, or different routes of administration of the same or different drugs as in [0018] with the results being predictable (improved navigation of the data).
As to claim 3 and 13, see the discussion of claim 1, however, Varaklis does not explicitly teach the computer-method wherein the graphical representation of the data comprises one or more charts.
However these differences are only found in the non-functional information displayed. The graphical representation of the data comprises one or more charts are not functionally related to the system. Thus, this descriptive information will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see Cf. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 40, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use different types of displayed data in the system of Varaklis, Hood, and Stern because such information does not functionally relate to the system and merely using different content from that in the prior art would have been obvious matter of design choice. See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
As to claim 4 and 14, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Varaklis discloses the computer-method wherein the medical dataset comprises time-dependent data and wherein the graphical representation of the data comprises representations of different temporal snapshots of the data, in particular, wherein a temporal control element is provided, particularly in form of a time line, to choose one or more temporal snapshots to which the graphical representation of the data shall pertain (Varaklis [0036] and figure 1).
As to claim 5 and 15, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Varaklis discloses the computer-method wherein the graphical representation of the human body or of a part of the human body is an interactive representation, in particular scalable and/or rotatable (Varaklis [0020] see zoom, scroll, pan or rotate).
As to claim 6 and 17 see the discussion of claim 6, additionally, Varaklis discloses the computer-method wherein the medical dataset pertains to more than one disease and wherein the method further comprises:
providing an interface allowing the user to select a disease (Varaklis [0022] and [0031]); and
restricting the graphical representation of the data associated with the part of the human body, to which the activatable button activated by the user input pertains, to data pertaining to the selected disease (Varaklis [0022] and [0031]).
As to claim 7 and 18, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Varaklis discloses the computer-method wherein the medical dataset pertains to more than one medication used for treating the at least one disease, and wherein the method further comprises: providing an interface allowing the user to select a medication; and restricting the graphical representation of the data associated with the part of the human body, to which the activatable button activated by the user input pertains, to data pertaining to the selected medication (Varaklis [0013]).
As to claim 9 and 20, see the discussion of claim 8, additionally, Varaklis discloses the computer-method wherein associating the data in the dataset with corresponding parts of the human body, to which the data pertains, further comprises receiving anatomical scores for each patient and storing them as elements in the at least one matrix (Varaklis [0026]).
As to claim 10, see the discussion of claim 9, additionally, discloses the computer-method further comprising determining anatomical scores from the patient level data of at least one patient using a machine learning technique (Varaklis [0025])
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2012/093163 A2 to Varaklis in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0036684 to Hood et al. in further view of U.S. Patent 10,714,213 Stern in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0038152 to Micieli
As to claim 2 and 12, see the discussion of claim 1, however, Varaklis does not explicitly teach the computer-method further comprising displaying a context menu in response to the activation of the activatable button, the context menu offering a set of choices for determining the graphical representation of the data and/or for choosing a subset of the data associated with the respective part of the human body. Micieli discloses displaying a context menu in response to the activation of the activatable button, the context menu offering a set of choices for determining the graphical representation of the data and/or for choosing a subset of the data associated with the respective part of the human body (Micieli [0060] see hyperlinked tab).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to limit data to more specific categories as in Micieli in the system of Varaklis, Hood, and Stern to improve the users ability to see more relevant data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the newly added elements of the independent claims are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eliza Lam whose telephone number is (571)270-7052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30PST.
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, Peter Choi can be reached on 469-295-9171. 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.
/ELIZA A LAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686