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 .
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Priority
This application claims priority to JP2019-153533 and so has an effective date equal to the filing date of 23 July 2019.
Amendment
In the amendment dated 07 October 2025 the following occurred: claims 1 and 13 were amended. Claims 1-13 are rejected herein. Claim 14-20 were previously cancelled.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) are at least disclosed in:
movement control unit: claim(s) 1,5,6,8,9;
communication control unit: claim(s) 1,2,3,7
medical control unit: claim(s) 1,10,11
selection unit: claim(s) 4
output control unit: claim(s) 2
movement control unit: claim(s) 7
observation unit: claim(s) 8,9
prescription control unit: claim(s) 12
prescription processing unit: claim 1
Sufficient structures are disclosed in the specification and drawings. For example, Fig. 9 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary configuration of an information processing unit realized by a processor of the pharmacy cart and Figure 14 serves as an algorithm disclosure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: The Statutory Category
The claims recite a moving object comprising of generic computer components and an information processing method. All are presumed to be within a statutory class for subject matter eligibility purposes.
Step 2A Prong One: The Abstract Idea
The limitations of (claim 13 being representative): causing […] autonomous movement […] according to an autonomously set route to reach one or more patients based on a patient demand […]; controlling communication […] monitoring and updating the organization of medical and pharmacy functions, setting a location, patrol route, and control parameters for autonomous behavior, receiving dispatch and timing information, receiving and transmitting patient information and telemedicine request information and communicating with a medical practitioner […] and controlling the telemedicine […] as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting (claim 1) one or more processors, a movement control unit, communication control unit, information processing terminal, a medical control unit, a server and (claim 13) a terminal, a processor, a server the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people (i.e., a person following a series of rules or steps), which falls under certain methods of organizing human activity. For example, but for the general-purpose computer elements, the claims encompass a person outputting movement instructions based on patient demand and controlling communication of a medical practitioner executing telemedicine as identified in the abstract idea, supra. Note that the units are all interpreted as generic computers or part(s) thereof.
The Examiner notes that “certain method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility at pg. 5). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, the it falls within the “certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two: Practical Application
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of (claim 1) one or more processors, a movement control unit, communication control unit, information processing terminal, a medical control unit, a server and (claim 13) a terminal, a processor, a server that implements the abstract idea. These additional elements are not exclusively described by the applicant and are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic general-purpose computer or components thereof) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 13 further recite the additional element of the moving object. The moving object generally links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Additional elements that generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot serve to integrate the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(l), Relevant Consideration for Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Integrate A Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application, and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Recitation of the limitation “…and dispensing medicine based on the tele-prescription data” equates to saying “apply it.” MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B:Significantly More
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a general-purpose computer (or components thereof) to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Recitation of the limitation “…and dispensing medicine based on the tele-prescription data” equates to saying “apply it.” MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide a practical application or provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Claims 1 and 13 further recite the additional element of the moving object. The moving object generally links the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Additional elements that generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot serve to integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(l), Relevant Consideration for Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Integrate A Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application, and MPEP 2106.05(h).
Dependent Claim Rejection and Dependent Additional Elements
Claims 2-12 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claim 2 merely describes controlling outputting of information regarding medical practitioners introduced to the patient. Claim 3 merely describes outputting information regarding medical practitioner introduced to the patient. Claim 4 merely describes a selection unit configured to select a medical practitioner based on conditions. Claim 5 merely describes a control unit controls the movement to a certain destination. Claim 6 merely describes controlling movement of a route designated based on certain demand. Claim 7 merely describes the reception of behavior history data of the patient and controlling movement based on the behavioral data. Claim 8 merely describes observing the demand of the patient and controlling the movement. Claim 9 merely describes detecting a telemedicine execution target and the actions of a control unit. Claim 10 merely describes controlling a medical device based on telemanipulation data from a certain terminal. Claim 11 merely describes controlling access to data. Claim 12 merely the actions of a prescription control unit in the telemanipulation of data sphere.
The Examiner has reviewed the as filed disclosure and identified a number of dependent additional elements, which were analyzed separately:
claim 2: medical practitioner terminal
claim 4: patient terminal also referred to as an information processing terminal
claim 10: a moving object comprising a medical device used for telemedicine, medical practitioner terminal
claim 11: medical practitioner terminal
The medical practitioner terminal of claims 2,10,11 and the moving object comprising a medical device used for telemedicine generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Additional elements that generally link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot serve to integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2016.04(d)(l); MPEP 2016.05(h).
Any other additional elements of the dependent claims were considered generic computers or components thereof and were analyzed as such.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1,6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11,097,742 B2 (hereafter Kanehara) in view of Pang (Intelligent Packaging and Intelligent Medicine Box for Medication Management Towards the Internet of Things).
Regarding Claim 1
Kanehara teaches:
A moving object comprising: one or more processors configured to implement: a movement control unit configured to affect autonomous movement of the moving object according to an autonomously set route for the moving object to reach one or more patient based on a patient demand, wherein the moving object is configured to accommodate an adult in a closed space within the moving object to facilitate provision of privacy for telemedicine services; [Kanehara teaches at Claim 1 first paragraph a mobile object that moves autonomously on the basis of an operation command comprising an examination controller configured to perform control relating to an medical examination of a client user in said mobile object. Kanehara teaches at Claim 3 wherein said examination controller is further configured to create the result of the medical examination of said user in said mobile object. Kanehara teaches at col. 14 line 35-37 that besides the function of examining and transporting a client users, the vehicle will have other functions, which may vary among individual vehicles. Kanehara teaches at col. 14 line 37-42 that for example, the vehicle will also function as a vehicle that runs along a predetermined route to pick up and drop off passengers, an on-demand taxi that operates on users’ demand, and a mobile shop that enables shop operation at a desired location. Collectively, the teachings of Kanehara teach a movement control unit configured to affect autonomous movement of the moving object according to an autonomously set route for the moving object to reach one or more patient based on a patient demand, wherein the moving object is configured to accommodate an adult in a closed space within the moving object to facilitate provision of privacy for telemedicine services.]
a communication control unit configured to communicate with a server, including: monitoring and updating the organization of medical and pharmacy functions, [Kanehara teaches at col. 19 line 29-34 that in the case where the transportation decision part decide to transport the client user to a medical facility by an ambulance, the ambulance requesting part sends a signal requesting dispatch of an ambulance to the ambulance management server. Kanehara teaches at col. 19 line 34-37 that this signal contains information of the current location of the vehicle (i.e. the dispatch location) and information of the result of the medical examination. The control signal summoning the ambulance is interpreted as updating the organization of medical and pharmacy functions.]
setting a location, patrol route, and control parameters for autonomous behavior, [Kanehara teaches at col. 14 line 51-52 teaches that, in this case, the vehicle will travel along a predetermined patrol route. The predetermined patrol route teaches setting a patrol route for autonomous behavior. Kanehara teaches at col. 19 line 29-34 that in the case where the transportation decision part decide to transport the client user to a medical facility by an ambulance, the ambulance requesting part sends a signal requesting dispatch of an ambulance to the ambulance management server. Kanehara teaches at col. 19 line 34-37 that this signal contains information of the current location of the vehicle (i.e. the dispatch location) and information of the result of the medical examination. Kanehara teaches at Claim 8 paragraph two transmit to a mobile object moving autonomously a first operation command instructing said mobile object to pick up said client user at a first destination, which is a location based on information sent from a client user’s terminal used by said client user.]
receiving dispatch and timing information, [Kanehara teaches at col. 19 line 29-34 that in the case where the transportation decision part decide to transport the client user to a medical facility by an ambulance, the ambulance requesting part sends a signal requesting dispatch of an ambulance to the ambulance management server. Kanehara teaches at col. 19 line 34-37 that this signal contains information of the current location of the vehicle (i.e. the dispatch location) and information of the result of the medical examination. Kanehara teaches at col. 16 line 26-28 if a medical facility will accept the client user, it informs the center server of that fact and waiting time in answer. Collectively, this is interpreted as receiving dispatch and timing information.]
receiving and transmitting patient information and telemedicine request information and control of communication with a medical practitioner terminal which is an information processing terminal of a medical practitioner executing telemedicine; [Kanehara teaches at Figure 2 Item 201 a communication unit. Kanehara teaches at Figure 2 Item 33-38 the examination controller will perform the control of automatically examining the client user using sensors or the like, asking questions prepared in advance of the client user, and/or establishing communication that enables medical examination of the client user by an examiner user. Kanehara teaches at line 38-40 the examiner user is a user who conducts a medical examination of the client user.]
and a medical control unit configured to control the telemedicine with the medical practitioner terminal; [Kanehara teaches at claim 2 autonomous driving system according to claim 1, further comprising an examiner user’s terminal used by an examiner user who conducts a medical examination of said client user and communicating with said client user’s terminal, wherein each examiner user’s terminal is configured to create the result of the medical examination of said client user. Kanehara teaches at Figure 2 Item 33-38 the examination controller will perform the control of automatically examining the client user using sensors or the like, asking questions prepared in advance of the client user, and/or establishing communication that enables medical examination of the client user by an examiner user.]
Kanehara may not explicitly teach:
and a prescription processing unit which dispenses medicine based on the tele-prescription data.
Pang teaches:
and a prescription processing unit which dispenses medicine based on the tele-prescription data.[Pang teaches at Figure 1 Application Scenario CDM in iPackage blister pack of medication communicating with iMedBox. Pang teaches at Figure 9 battery-less intelligent pharmaceutical packaging based on wireless power transmission includes an RFID tag embedded in an intelligent pharmaceutical packaging communicating with an RFID reader on the intelligent medicine box. Pang teaches at Figure 15 demonstration of the iMedBox for medication management application that is used for dispensing medicine based on electronic prescription. Pang teaches at Figure 14 loading and showing the prescription; starting reading RFID (>5 rounds per second) and in the next logic question determining if a medicine is taken away (not detected in the last 5 rounds). Note the finished dose indicator and time on the screen of the embedded device in Figure 15. Collectively, this is interpreted as dispensing medicine based on the tele-prescription data. Note that Figure 3 System architecture includes wireless internet on the iMedBox for communication. The device embedded in the lid of the iMedBox in Figure 15 is the prescription processing unit which dispenses medicine (from the iMedBox) based on tele-prescription data.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the autonomous driving system, autonomous mobile object and server of Kanehara to the intelligent packaging and intelligent medicine box for medication management towards the Internet of Things of Pang with the motivation of addressing in-home healthcare state (IHHS), which is needed to meet rapidly increasing demands for daily monitoring and on-site diagnosis and prognosis (Pang at the Abstract).
Regarding Claim 13
Due to its similarity to Claim 1, Claim(s) 13 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim(s) 1.
Regarding Claim 6
Kanehara/Pang teach the moving object according to claim 1. Kanehara/Pang further teach:
wherein the movement control unit controls movement of a route designated based on the demand of the patient. [Kanehara teaches at Claim 1 first paragraph a mobile object that moves autonomously on the basis of an operation command comprising an examination controller configured to perform control relating to an medical examination of a client user in said mobile object. Kanehara teaches at Claim 3 wherein said examination controller is further configured to create the result of the medical examination of said user in said mobile object. Kanehara teaches at col. 14 line 35-37 that besides the function of examining and transporting a client users, the vehicle will have other functions, which may vary among individual vehicles. Kanehara teaches at col. 14 line 37-42 that for example, the vehicle will also function as a vehicle that runs along a predetermined route to pick up and drop off passengers, an on-demand taxi that operates on users’ demand, and a mobile shop that enables shop operation at a desired location. The users’ demand is interpreted to be the demand of the patient. Collectively, the teachings of Kanehara teach the movement control unit controls movement of a route designated based on the demand of the patient.]
Claim(s) 2,10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11097742 B2 (hereafter Kanehara) in view of Pang (Intelligent Packaging and Intelligent Medicine Box for Medication Management towards the Internet of Things) in view of KR 2015-0031173 A (hereafter Yong).
Regarding Claim 2
Kanehara/Pang teach the moving object according to claim 1. Kanehara/Pang may not explicitly teach:
further comprising an output control unit configured to control outputting of information regarding medical practitioners introduced to the patient,
wherein the communication control unit controls communication with the medical practitioner terminal of a medical practitioner selected among the introduced medical practitioner.
Yong teaches:
further comprising an output control unit configured to control outputting of information regarding medical practitioners introduced to the patient, [Yong teaches at pg. 6 a display unit for displaying symptom information, image information, and medical information received from the examination terminal. Yong specifically teaches at pg. 6 a control unit sending the EMR information, statistical processing information, medical information to the display unit so that an accurate diagnosis can be made; Yong specifically teaches states that the function of the control unit is to control what is displayed on the screen.]
wherein the communication control unit controls communication with the medical practitioner terminal of a medical practitioner selected among the introduced medical practitioner. [Yong teaches at pg. 6 the medical consultation terminal includes a communication module for communicating with an internet network or a mobile communication network, an input module for inputting personal information of the patient (interpreted as a medical practitioner terminal which is an information processing terminal of a medical practitioner executing telemedicine). Yong teaches at pg. 6 the consultation terminal will be provided not only in a personal computer, a notebook computer, but also in a personal communication terminal such as a hospital server, a hospital server in a health center or a medical treatment center, a smart phone or a tablet PC. Finally Yong teaches at pg. 6 an examination terminal further includes a control module for controlling the operation of each module, this teaches a communication control unit configured to control communication with a medical practitioner terminal. Yong teaches at pg. 7 the present invention provides an intermediate health manager service between a user and a doctor, interpreted to be medical practitioner selected among the introduced medical practitioner because when the system of Yong connects a patient with a doctor, the doctor is necessarily already chosen/selected by the system.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the autonomous driving system, autonomous mobile object and server of Kanehara to the intelligent packaging and intelligent medicine box for medication management towards the Internet of Things of Pang to the system for remote medical diagnosis and control method thereof of Yong with the motivation of addressing needs in the underdeveloped country, where even basic medical facilities are not enough and many people are suffering from the disease (Yong at page 2).
Regarding Claim 10
Kanehara/Pang teach the moving object according to claim 1. Kanehara/Pang further teach:
further comprising: a medical device used for telemedicine, [Kanehara teaches at col. 2 line 33-38, the examination controller will perform the control of automatically examining the client user using sensors or the like, asking questions prepared in advance of the client user, and/or establishing communication that enables medical examination of the client user by an examiner user. The sensors taught here by Kanehara are interpreted as medical devices used for telemedicine. ]
Kanehara/Pang may not explicitly teach:
wherein the medical control unit controls the medical device based on telemanipulation data from the medical practitioner terminal.
Yong teaches:
wherein the medical control unit controls the medical device based on telemanipulation data from the medical practitioner terminal. [Yong teaches at pg. 6 the diagnostic terminal will include various diagnostic equipment such as an x-ray imaging device, a CT imaging device, and an ultrasound diagnostic device for examining a patient. Yong teaches at pg. 6 an examination terminal further includes a control module for controlling the operation of each module; this is interpreted as the medical control unit. Yong thus teaches wherein the medical control unit controls the medical device based on telemanipulation data from the medical practitioner terminal.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the autonomous driving system, autonomous mobile object and server of Kanehara to the intelligent packaging and intelligent medicine box for medication management towards the Internet of Things of Pang to the system for remote medical diagnosis and control method thereof of Yong with the motivation of addressing needs in the underdeveloped country, where even basic medical facilities are not enough and many people are suffering from the disease (Yong at page 2).
Regarding Claim 11
Kanehara/Pang teach the moving object according to claim 1. Kanehara/Pang may not explicitly teach:
wherein the medical control unit performs access control to medical information of a patient receiving the telemedicine.
Yong teaches:
wherein the medical control unit performs access control to medical information of a patient receiving the telemedicine. [Yong at pg. 9 teaches a control unit for controlling to transmit the diagnosis information and the prescription information to the examination terminal. This is interpreted as medical control unit controlling access to medical information of a patient receiving telemedicine.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the autonomous driving system, autonomous mobile object and server of Kanehara to the intelligent packaging and intelligent medicine box for medication management towards the Internet of Things of Pang to the system for remote medical diagnosis and control method thereof of Yong with the motivation of addressing needs in the underdeveloped country, where even basic medical facilities are not enough and many people are suffering from the disease (Yong at page 2).
Regarding Claim 12
Kanehara/Pang teach the moving object according to claim 1. Kanehara/Pang may not explicitly teach:
further comprising: a prescription device used for tele-prescription;
and a prescription control unit configured to control the prescription device based on telemanipulation data from the medical practitioner terminal.
Yong teaches:
further comprising: a prescription device used for tele-prescription; [Yong at pg. 9 teaches a control unit for controlling to transmit the diagnosis information and the prescription information to the examination terminal. This is interpreted as medical control unit controlling access to medical information of a patient receiving telemedicine.]
and a prescription control unit configured to control the prescription device based on telemanipulation data from the medical practitioner terminal. [Yong at pg. 9 teaches a control unit for controlling to transmit the diagnosis information and the prescription information to the examination terminal. This is interpreted as medical control unit controlling access to medical information of a patient receiving telemedicine.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the autonomous driving system, autonomous mobile object and server of Kanehara to the intelligent packaging and intelligent medicine box for medication management towards the Internet of Things of Pang to the system for remote medical diagnosis and control method thereof of Yong with the motivation of addressing needs in the underdeveloped country, where even basic medical facilities are not enough and many people are suffering from the disease (Yong at page 2).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11097742 B2 (hereafter Kanehara) in view of Pang (Intelligent Packaging and Intelligent Medicine Box for Medication Management towards the Internet-of-Things) in view of KR 2015-0031173 A (hereafter Yong) in view in view of Gombolay (Robotic Assistance in the Coordination of Patient Care).
Regarding Claim 3
Kanehara/Pang/Yong teach the moving object according to claim 2. Kanehara/Pang/Yong may not explicitly teach:
wherein the communication control unit controls reception of the information regarding the medical practitioners from an information processing device selecting the medical practitioners introduced to the patient based on at least one of a patient state and desired condition.
Gombolay teaches:
wherein the communication control unit controls reception of the information regarding the medical practitioners from an information processing device selecting the medical practitioners introduced to the patient based on at least one of a patient state and desired condition. [Gombolay at 1307 teaches that the robot will respond in the task of assigning medical practitioners (nurses) to patients: for example, the robot will say “assign a new patient to a nurse who has no patients under her care.” The communication unit is interpreted to be the processor running the communication system taught by Gombolay on pg. 1311 because the system is designed to communicate information regarding which medical practitioner and what resources, respectively, should be assigned to each patient. The definition of state is “the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time.” Patient demand is sensing the needs of the patients and inherently involves assessing multiple individual patient states and implementing a treatment or intervention to improve each patient state to a desired patient state (disease free outcome etc.). The robot and limitations taught in Gombolay teach the desired limitations.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the autonomous driving system, autonomous mobile object and server of Kanehara to the intelligent packaging and intelligent medicine box for medication management towards the Internet of Things of Pang to the system for remote medical diagnosis and control method thereof of Yong to the robotic assistance in the coordination of patient care of Gombolay with the motivation of improving operational efficiency by delivering and preparing supplies, material and medications thereby acting as would a resource nurse (Gombolay at pg. 1300 at the Introduction).
Claim(s) 4,5,8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11097742 B2 (hereafter Kanehara) in view of Pang (Intelligent Packaging and Intelligent Medicine Box for Medication Management towards the Internet of Things) in view of Gombolay (Robotic Assistance in the Coordination of Patient Care).
Regarding Claim 4
Kanehara/Pang teaches the moving object according to claim 1. Kanehara/Pang may not explicitly teach:
further comprising: a selection unit configured to select a medical practitioner based on at least one of a patient state and a desired condition.
Gombolay teaches:
further comprising: a selection unit configured to select a medical practitioner based on at least one of a patient state and a desired condition. [Gombolay teaches at pg. 1301 that their robot uses machine learning computer vision techniques to read the current status (i.e. teaches reading a patient demand) of the medical floor and to make suggestions of how resources should be allocated. The phrase “how resources should be allocated” is interpreted to include human practitioners as well as inert medical supplies and equipment.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the autonomous driving system, autonomous mobile object and server of Kanehara to the intelligent packaging and intelligent medicine box for medication management towards the Internet of Things of Pang to the robotic assistance in the coordination of patient care of Gombolay with the motivation of improving operational efficiency by delivering and preparing supplies, material and medications thereby acting as would a resource nurse (Gombolay at pg. 1300 at the Introduction).
Regarding Claim 5
Kanehara/Pang teaches the moving object according to claim 1. Kanehara/Pang may not explicitly teach:
wherein the movement control unit controls movement to a destination designated based on the demand of the patient.
Gombolay teaches:
wherein the movement control unit controls movement to a destination designated based on the demand of the patient. [Gombolay teaches at the Introduction that resource nurses are solving nurse practitioner level problems on the fly: they assign medical resources and triage. Examiner interprets this level of autonomous decision making to teach the limitation “control movement based on a patient demand”. This interpretation happens to be in harmony with the Specification at para. [0110], which indicates that disasters, disease outbreaks, unseasonal weather (i.e., a typhoon, earthquake, a fire) impact patient demand (patient demand in a hospital for example). The Examiner interprets a robot that, autonomously or semi autonomously, controls movement across a hospital floor to deliver medical resources to the areas of highest patient demand and that autonomously or semi autonomously matches providers to patients to be “controlling movement based on a patient demand” (which is impacted by weather, disasters etc.). Gombolay teaches at the Abstract that their experimental medical robot in their publication Molina 2018 was used to assist resource nurses on a labor and deliver floor at a tertiary care center. Gombolay teaches at pg. 1301 that their robot uses machine learning computer vision techniques to read the current status (i.e. teaches reading a patient demand) of the medical floor and to make suggestions of how resources should be allocated. The processor running the machine learning model that autonomously or semi-autonomously pairs resources and staff with patients based on patient demand of Gombolay is interpreted as the movement control unit in the limitation above. The broadest reasonable interpretation distinction between claim 6 and claims 5 and 8 is noted.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the autonomous driving system, autonomous mobile object and server of Kanehara to the intelligent packaging and intelligent medicine box for medication management towards the Internet of Things of Pang to the robotic assistance in the coordination of patient care of Gombolay with the motivation of improving operational efficiency by delivering and preparing supplies, material and medications thereby acting as would a resource nurse (Gombolay at pg. 1300 at the Introduction).
Regarding Claim 8
Kanehara/Pang teach the moving object according to claim 1. Kanehara/Pang may not explicitly teach:
an observation unit configured to detect the demand of the patient by observing surrounding,
wherein the movement control unit controls the movement based on the detected demand of the patient.
Gombolay teaches:
an observation unit configured to detect the demand of the patient by observing surrounding, [Gombolay teaches at pg. 1301 that their robot uses machine learning computer vision techniques to read the current status of the medical floor and to make suggestions of how resources should be allocated. This teaches reading the patient demand of the patient by observing the surrounding.]
wherein the movement control unit controls the movement based on the detected demand of the patient. [Gombolay teaches at the Introduction that resource nurses are solving nurse practitioner level problems on the fly: they assign medical resources and triage. Examiner interprets this level of autonomous decision making to teach the limitation “control movement based on a patient demand” as the limitation is written in the claim without importing the Specification. This interpretation happens to be in harmony with the Specification at para. [0110], which indicates that disasters, disease outbreaks, unseasonal weather (i.e., a typhoon, earthquake, a fire) impact patient demand (patient demand in a hospital for example). The Examiner interprets a robot that, autonomously or semi autonomously, controls movement across a hospital floor to deliver medical resources to the areas of highest patient demand and that autonomously or semi autonomously matches providers to patients to be “controlling movement based on a patient demand” (which is impacted by weather, disasters etc.). Gombolay teaches at the Abstract that their experimental medical robot was used to assist resource nurses on a labor and deliver floor at a tertiary care center. Gombolay teaches at pg. 1301 that their robot uses machine learning computer vision techniques to read the current status (i.e. teaches reading a patient demand) of the medical floor and to make suggestions of how resources should be allocated. The processor running the machine learning model that autonomously or semi-autonomously pairs resources and staff with patients based on patient demand of Gombolay is interpreted as the movement control unit in the limitation above. The broadest reasonable interpretation distinction between claim 6 and claims 5 and 8 is noted.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the autonomous driving system, autonomous mobile object and server of Kanehara to the intelligent packaging and intelligent medicine box for medication management towards the Internet of Things of Pang to the system for remote medical diagnosis and control method thereof of Yong to the robotic assistance in the coordination of patient care of Gombolay with the motivation of improving operational efficiency by delivering and preparing supplies, material and medications thereby acting as would a resource nurse (Gombolay at pg. 1300 at the Introduction).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of US 11097742 B2 (hereafter Kanehara) in view of Pang (Intelligent Packaging and Intelligent Medicine Box for Medication Management towards the Internet of Things) in view of US 2018/0229372 A1 (hereafter Breazeal).
Regarding Claim 7
Kanehara/Pang teaches the moving object according to claim 1. Kanehara/Pang may not explicitly teach:
wherein the communication control unit controls reception of behavior history data of the patient from a patient terminal which is an information processing terminal of the patient,
and wherein the movement control unit controls the movement based on the behavior history data.
Breazeal teaches
wherein the communication control unit controls reception of behavior history data of the patient from a patient terminal which is an information processing terminal of the patient, [Breazeal teaches at para. [0021] that the social robot may further include an embodied speech system that facilitates intent-based variations of spoken utterances and other paralinguistic non-verbal or non-spoken communications, optionally combined with multi-segment body movement of the social robot, graphical display, sounds, lighting effects, etc. The processor running the embodied speech system of Breazeal is interpreted as the communication control unit that is control the reception of behavior history data. For example, Breazeal states that the social robot will remember the history of an environment and know areas from whence people tend to approach. This is interpreted as a robot interpreting behavior history data via the embodied speech system of Breazeal, taught above.]
and wherein the movement control unit controls the movement based on the behavior history data. [Breazeal teaches at para. 52 that the social robot will remember the history of an environment and know areas from whence people tend to approach. This is interpreted as a robot interpreting behavior history data. Breazeal teaches at the Abstract a socio-emotive-cognitive architecture for a social robot that includes at least two of an attention system that determines at least one of the subject on which and the direction to which the robot focuses at least one of its resources in real-time; an embodied speech system that facilitates intent-based variation of utterances combined with multi-segment body movement. At para. [0026] Breazeal teaches a socio-emotive-cognitive architecture of a social robot may include a physical interface layer that manages inputs received by the robot via, for example, sound, visual, inertial, motion, and tactile sensors of the social robot and outputs of the social robot via, for example, audio, electronic display, lighting, and movement (including multi-segment body movement) or overall motion (e.g., being picked up and carried). Breazeal teaches at para. [0026] that the social robot may be instructed to position itself to face along a specific vector (teaches that the robot conducts destination-based movement). Breazeal teaches at para. [0026] target-directed movement. Thus the processor of the social robot of Breazeal is interpreted to be the organization unit sets the destination or the route of the moving robot based on behavioral history data (historical data of people walking around is behavioral history data).]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the autonomous driving system, autonomous mobile object and server of Kanehara to the intelligent packaging and intelligent medicine box for medication management towards the Internet of Things of Pang to maintaining attention and conveying believability via expression and goal-oriented behavior with a social robot of Brezeal with the motivation of improving the way a robot delivers expressions that convey emotion, tone, or expression in a way that seems authentic, believable and understandable, rather than what is commonly called “robotic” (hereafter Breazeal).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 11097742 B2 (hereafter Kanehara) in view of Pang (Intelligent Packaging and Intelligent Medicine Box for Medication Management towards the Internet of Things) in view of Gombolay (Robotic Assistance in the Coordination of Patient Care) in view of US 2018/0229372 A1 (hereafter Breazeal).
Regarding Claim 9
Kanehara/Pang/Gombolay teach the moving object according to claim 8. Kanehara/Pang/Gombolay further teach:
wherein the observation unit detects a person who is a telemedicine execution target, [Gombolay teaches at pg. 1301 that their robot uses machine learning computer vision techniques to read the current status of the medical floor and to make suggestions of how resources should be allocated. This teaches reading a patient demand – or in other words, detecting a person who is in need of healthcare, which is interpreted as being the same as detecting a person who is a telemedicine execution target.]
Kanehara/Pang/Gombolay may not explicitly teach:
and wherein the movement control unit performs control such that the moving object is stopped near the detected person.
Breazeal teaches:
and wherein the movement control unit performs control such that the moving object is stopped near the detected person. [Breazeal teaches at para. [0026] target-directed movement (i.e. moving towards a patient target). Breazeal teaches at para. [0026] that the social robot may be instructed to position itself to face along a specific vector (teaches that the robot conducts destination-based movement). Breazeal teaches at para.[0216] that thresholds will be reduced so that smaller movements, more familiar objects, quieter sounds could trigger redirecting the resources of the robot to the region where the movement, object, sound, or person are detected. Collectively, the teachings of Breazeal are interpreted to teach wherein the movement control unit performs control such that the moving object is stopped near the detected person.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare, at the time of filing, to modify the autonomous driving system, autonomous mobile object and server of Kanehara to the intelligent packaging and intelligent medicine box for medication management towards the Internet of Things of Pang to the robotic assistance in the coordination of patient care of Gombolay to maintaining attention and conveying believability via expression and goal-oriented behavior with a social robot of Brezeal with the motivation of improving the way a robot delivers expressions that convey emotion, tone, or expression in a way that seems authentic, believable and understandable, rather than what is commonly called “robotic” (hereafter Breazeal).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant argues that the revised claims 1 and 13 recite additional specific feature of “a prescription processing unit which dispenses medicine based on the tele-prescription data” thus overcoming the rejection.
Please see the updated basis of rejection. Another consideration when determining whether a claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or recites significantly more than a judicial exception in Step 2B is whether the additional elements amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it’". Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. As stated in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection this limitation invoked apply it.
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:
Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception.
The claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished): how will the medication be administered? The claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Finally, the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception is high.
35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
Kanehara does not teach or suggest that a moving object has “…and dispensing medicine based on the tele-prescription data” as recited with other features in the ordered combination of claim 1.
The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection has been withdrawn and a new basis of rejection added to address the amendment. Please see the new basis of rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Okamura (Medical and Health-care Robotics) teaches the state of robotics over the past 50 years including emphasis on application areas for medical and health-care robots.
Koceska, Natasa, et al. "A telemedicine robot system for assisted and independent living." Sensors 19.4 (2019): 834. Koceska teaches background concerning the use of robots and discloses a developed assistive telepresence robot.
US 8799009 B2 (hereafter Mellin) teaches systems, methods and apparatuses for predicting capacity of resources in an institution which is relevant to the demand prediction unit named herein.
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 TRISTAN ISAAC EVANS whose telephone number is (571)270-5972. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8:00am-12:00pm & 1:00pm-7:00pm, off Fridays.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached at 571-272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/T.I.E./Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/CHRISTOPHER L GILLIGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683