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 .
Status of Claims
This action is a final rejection
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-12 are pending
Claims 1, 7 were amended
Claims 6, 9 were cancelled
Claim 12 was added
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-12 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-12 are rejected under 35 USC § 103
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for a foreign priority date of 5-20-2021
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5-20-2022, 4-7-2025 and 9-17-2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-5, 7-8, 10-12 are not patent eligible because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
First, claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter. Regarding claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-12 the claims recite an abstract idea of medical information processing.
Independent claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 based on the following analysis.
-Step 1 (Does the claim fall within a statutory category? YES): claim 1 recites an system for medical information processing.
-Step 2A Prong One (Does the claim fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas?: YES): The claimed invention:
A medical information processing system …configured to:
receive a request for viewing predetermined clinical data;
designate one or more pieces of first clinical data corresponding to the request among a plurality of pieces of clinical data
specify one or more pieces of second clinical data associated with the first clinical data among viewing history of the user, the viewing history being related to the plurality of pieces of clinical data viewed by the user; and
output display data for collectively displaying the first clinical data and the second clinical data on a common time axis in one graph;
display the first clinical data and the second clinical data
belonging to the grouping of mental processes under concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) as it recites: “medical information processing”. Alternatively, the selected abstract idea belongs to the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as it recites “medical information processing” (refer to MPP 2106.04(a)(2)). Accordingly this claim recites an abstract idea.
-Step 2A Prong Two (Are there additional elements in the claim that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea? NO).
Claim 1 recites:
a medical information processing apparatus;
a terminal;
a database;
wherein the medical information processing apparatus includes processing circuitry;
output .. data to the terminal;
the terminal is configured to display data in which a content of the second clinical data is displayed on a pop-up when the user selects the second clinical data;
Amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Support for this can be found in the specification, paragraphs (page 7, lines 17-26 and page 8, lines 1-27 and page 9, lines 1-27) (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not integrate the judicial exception/abstract idea into a “practical application” of the judicial exception because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the judicial exception.
-Step 2B (Does the additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept?: NO. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, claim 1 & 19 recite:
Claim 1 recites:
a medical information processing apparatus;
a terminal;
a database;
wherein the medical information processing apparatus includes processing circuitry;
output .. data to the terminal;
the terminal is configured to display data in which a content of the second clinical data is displayed on a pop-up when the user selects the second clinical data;
Amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Support for this can be found in the specification, paragraphs (page 7, lines 17-26 and page 8, lines 1-27 and page 9, lines 1-27) (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, even when viewed as a whole the claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) and hence the claim is ineligible..
Dependent Claims:
Step 2A Prong One: The following dependent claims recites additional limitations that further define the abstract idea of medical information processing. The claim limitations include:
Claim 2: wherein when the first clinical data and the second clinical data are time-series data, … configured to designate a first time zone on a time axis of the first clinical data, and specify the second clinical data in a second time zone that coincides or approximately coincides with the first time zone on a time axis of the second clinical data.
Claim 3: wherein the viewing history is each combination of the plurality of pieces of clinical data viewed simultaneously by the user, .. configured to specify one or more pieces of clinical data that are included in one or more first combinations including the first clinical data and that are different from the first clinical data, as the second clinical data.
Claim 4: wherein the viewing history is a viewing time or a viewing frequency for the each combination of the plurality of pieces of clinical data viewed simultaneously by the user, and … configured to specify one or more second combinations including a viewing time or a viewing frequency that is equal to or greater than a threshold value, among the first combinations, and then specify one or more pieces of clinical data that are included in the second combinations and are different from the first clinical data, as the second clinical data.
Claim 5: wherein the viewing history is a viewing order
Claim 7: wherein the processing circuitry is configured to associate a comment input by the user with the display data.
Claim 8: wherein the processing circuitry is configured to transmit the display data and the comment to one or more other users different from the user.
Claim 10: wherein the viewing history is a viewing order related to an order in which the user viewed the plurality of pieces of clinical data.
Step 2A Prong Two (Are there additional elements in the claim that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea? NO). The following dependent claims recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims include:
Claim 2: processing circuitry;
Claim 3: processing circuitry;.
Claim 4: processing circuitry;
Claim 5: processing circuitry;
Claim 7: processing circuitry;
Claim 8: processing circuitry;
Claim 11: wherein the processing circuitry is configured to set N according to an input from the user.
Step 2B (Does the additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept?: NO). As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the following dependent claims recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) and hence the claim is ineligible. The claims include:
Claim 2: processing circuitry;
Claim 3: processing circuitry;.
Claim 4: processing circuitry;
Claim 5: processing circuitry;
Claim 7: processing circuitry;
Claim 8: processing circuitry;
Claim 11: wherein the processing circuitry is configured to set N according to an input from the user;
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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
non-obviousness.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable by Noro et.al (US 20190066827 A1) hereinafter “Noro1”; in view of Hiramatsu et.al. (US 20130346110 A1) hereinafter “Hiramatsu”; in view of Noro et.al. (US 20200138383 A1) hereinafter “Noro2”; in further view of Brooks et.al. (US 20200005916 A1) hereinafter “Brooks”
Regarding claims 1 Noro1 teaches: A medical information processing system (medical information processing system) comprising a medical information processing apparatus, a terminal (a terminal device 600… includes an input interface 610 ), and a database (a memory 120), wherein the medical information processing apparatus includes processing circuitry configured to: (See at least [0028] via: “…A medical information processing system comprises a memory and processing circuitry…”; in addition see at least [0030] via: “…FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating an exemplary configuration of a medical information processing system 1 according to a first embodiment. As illustrated in FIG. 1, the medical information processing system 1 includes a medical information processing apparatus 100, a network 200, a Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS) server 300, an electronic medical record storage apparatus 400, a specimen examination server 500, and a terminal device 600 ..”; in addition see at least [0052] via: “…As illustrated in FIG. 1, the terminal device 600 includes an input interface 610 and the display 620. The input interface 610 is configured to convert an input operation received from the operator into an electrical signal and to output the electrical signal to the medical information processing apparatus 100. For example, the input interface 610 is realized by using a trackball, a switch button, a mouse, a keyboard, a touch panel, and/or the like…”; in addition see at least [0046] via: “…As illustrated in FIG. 1, the medical information processing apparatus 100 includes interface (I/F) circuitry 110, a memory 120, and processing circuitry 130 ..”)
receive a request (“user input”) for viewing predetermined clinical data (acquires …records displayed in time series) from the terminal (terminal device 600 includes an input interface 610); (See at least [0052] via: “…As illustrated in FIG. 1, the terminal device 600 includes an input interface 610 and the display 620. The input interface 610 is configured to convert an input operation received from the operator into an electrical signal and to output the electrical signal to the medical information processing apparatus 100…”; in addition see at least [0050] via: “…by reading and executing programs corresponding to the display control function 132, the acquisition function 133, and the extracting function 134 from the memory 120, the processing circuitry 130 acquires a time range corresponding to an operation performed on any of the prescription records displayed in time series and further displays one or more pieces of medical image data corresponding to the time range on the display 620 ..”; in addition see at least [0100] via: “…The acquisition function 133 is configured to receive the operation performed on the prescription records displayed in time series and to acquire the time range corresponding to the received operation.
designate one or more pieces of first clinical data (pieces of first medical data.. includes at least image data indicating medical information) corresponding to the request (input operation received from the operator) among a plurality of pieces of clinical data stored in the database (memory); (See at least [0028] via: “…The memory is configured to store therein pieces of first medical data each of which includes at least image data indicating medical information … The processing circuitry is configured to …acquire a time range corresponding to the received operation, extract at least one of the pieces of first medical data corresponding to the time range from the memory, and display at least one extracted piece of first medical data…”; in addition see at least [0052] via: “…As illustrated in FIG. 1, …. The input interface 610 is configured to convert an input operation received from the operator into an electrical signal and to output the electrical signal to the medical information processing apparatus 100…”)
specify one or more pieces of second clinical data (pieces of second medical data… second medical data is non-image data) associated with the first clinical data among plurality of pieces of clinical data (pieces of first medical data and the pieces of second medical data are associated with times) [viewed by a user based on a viewing history of the user, the viewing history being related to the plurality of pieces of clinical data viewed by the user]; (See at least [0028] via: “…pieces of second medical data each of which is included in data indicating medical information and is other than the first medical data, so that the pieces of first medical data and the pieces of second medical data are associated with times. The processing circuitry is configured to receive an operation performed on any of the pieces of second medical data displayed in time series, to acquire a time range corresponding to the received operation ....”; in addition see at least [0042] via: “…The non-image data is an example of the second medical data, which is the data that is included in data indicating medical information and is other than the first medical data. In this situation, when the first medical data is image data, the second medical data is non-image data. In other words, the electronic medical record storage apparatus 400 and the specimen examination server 500 are each configured to store therein the second medical data, which is the data that is included in data indicating medical information and is other than the first medical data, so as to be associated with the times..”; in addition see at least [0100] via: “…the electronic medical record storage apparatus 400, and the specimen examination server 500 are each configured to store therein the medical image data and the prescription records so as to be associated with the times. The acquisition function 133 is configured to receive the operation performed on the prescription records displayed in time series and to acquire the time range corresponding to the received operation…”; in addition see at least [0101] via: “…by simply designating a medication administration time period, the operator who has referred to the prescription records displayed in time series is able to view the piece of medical image data corresponding to the time when the administration of the medication was started and the piece of medical image data corresponding to either the time when the administration of the medication was ended or the current point in time. In other words, the medical information processing system 1 according to the first embodiment is able to make it easy to compare the prescription records with the medical image data and to further make it easy to adjust the types and the doses of the medications…”) The Examiner notes that based on viewing records over a given time period, an operator is able to specify the second piece of data equivalent to administration of the medication associated with the first piece of data related to medical images or vice versa.)
However Noro1 is silent regarding selecting one or more pieces of second clinical data based on a viewing history related to the plurality of pieces of clinical data as taught by Hiramatsu:
specify one or more pieces of second clinical data viewed by a user … based on a viewing history of the user, the viewing history being related to the plurality of pieces of clinical data viewed by the user (See at least [0013] via: “…a clinical information display means that receives an input of an instruction to display clinical information about the patient on a display device by a user belonging to one of the plurality of user groups, and that selects a display setting to be used for display of this time from the history of display setting stored in the display history storage means in such a manner to be linked with the one of the plurality of user groups to which the user belongs, and that displays the clinical information about the patient on the display device by using the selected display setting…”; in addition see at least [0049] via: “…When the clinical information management server 10 receives a request for retrieval of clinical information about a patient from the client terminal 20, the clinical information management server 10 refers to correspondence table T about the patient stored in the display history database 12. Further, the clinical information management server 10 selects the most recent history of display setting stored in such a manner to be linked with a user group to which the user of the client terminal 20 belongs. The clinical information management server 10 retrieves and extracts clinical information from the clinical information database 11 based on the selected display setting. The clinical information management server 10 sends the extracted clinical information to the client terminal 20 that has requested the clinical information…”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Noro1 to incorporate the teachings of Hiramatsu. Those in the art would have recognized that Noro1’s teaching regarding pieces of first medical data each of which includes image data indicating medical information and pieces of second medical data each of which is included in data indicating medical information and is other than the first medical data, so that the pieces of first medical data and the pieces of second medical data are associated with times and displayed as time series, could be modified to include Hiramatsu’s teaching regarding a display setting for display selected from the history of display-setting stored in a display history storage in such a manner to be linked with the one of the plural user groups, whereby the patient's clinical information is displayed on the display device by using the selected display-setting. The combination of Noro1 and Hiramatsu is useful to medical personnel whereby a set of medical image data previously ordered sequentially with medical meaning and stored by a doctor may be quickly and easily accessed from a storage unit when reviewing a plurality of medical data pertaining to a patient.
However Noro1 and Hiramatsu are is silent regarding the following limitation as taught by Noro2:
output display data for collectively displaying the first clinical data and on a common time axis in one graph to the terminal (See at least [0074] via: “…as illustrated in FIG. 16, when the display 140 is a high-resolution display, the determining function 153 arranges the different type of image data 61 and the medication data 71 serving as the peripheral data categorized as the information having a high possibility of being compared with the principal data 31 to be positioned on the lower side of the principal data 31 arranged at the center of the display screen. In these situations, according to the type and the resolution of the display 140, the determining function 153 arranges the different type of image data 61 and the medication data 71 so as to be contained in the area defined by the “application width” and the “application height” set in the screen configuration information..”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Noro1 and Hiramatsu to incorporate the teachings of Noro2. Those in the art would have recognized that Noro1’s teaching regarding pieces of first medical data each of which includes image data indicating medical information and pieces of second medical data each of which is included in data indicating medical information and is other than the first medical data, so that the pieces of first medical data and the pieces of second medical data are associated with times and displayed as time series, could be modified to include Noro2’s teaching regarding displaying medical images and medication data simultaneously, and associated by time and displayed as a time series on a common time axis as shown in fig. 15. The combination of Noro1 and Noro2 is useful to medical personnel in being able to simultaneously observe how medical images of a patient may correlate in time with the administration of medication.
However Noro1, Hiramatsu and Noro2 are is silent regarding the following limitation as taught by Brooks:
the terminal is configured to display data in which a content of the second clinical data is displayed on a pop-up when the user selects the second clinical data (See at least [0010] via: “…In some cases, additional information about ongoing and/or resolved problems may be accessed via an input, such as a cursor hover, that initiates a pop-up display. ..”; in addition see at least [0084] via: “…FIG. 4 illustrates ..embodiment of the display provided by the GUI generator 128 in FIG. 2. ... the additional information will not be visible until an input is received at the duration indicator. In some aspects, the additional information recalled may be preconfigured. Upon receiving the input, the metadata tag may be used to recall the additional information, which may then be displayed in a pop-up window. For example, in FIG. 4, the second duration indicator 120 has been shaded darker to indicate that is has received an input. Utilizing the metadata tags linked to the patient EHR and associated with the second duration indicator 120, the GUI generator 128 recalls additional information about the corresponding clinical diagnosis (first pregnancy) that is stored in the EHR. The additional information is illustrated as being presented in duration indicator pop-up window 160..”; in addition see at least [0085] via: “…By including additional information based on using metadata tags and presenting the additional information as a pop-up, additional space in the GUI is conserved. This provides another way that information may be visually communicated to the user in a manner that conserves space and allows for the same format or background to be used across various large and small user interface screen sizes...”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Noro1, Hiramatsu and Noro2 to incorporate the teachings of Brooks. Those in the art would have recognized that Noro1’s teaching regarding pieces of first medical data each of which includes image data indicating medical information and pieces of second medical data each of which is included in data indicating medical information and is other than the first medical data, so that the pieces of first medical data and the pieces of second medical data are associated with times and displayed as time series, could be modified to include Brooks’s teaching regarding additional information as a pop-up. The combination of Noro1 and Brooks is useful to medical personnel in providing “another way that information may be visually communicated to the user in a manner that conserves space and allows for the same format or background to be used across various large and small user interface screen sizes” (Brooks [0085])
Regarding claim 2 Noro1, Hiramatsu, Noro2 and Brooks teach the invention as claimed and detailed with respect to claim 1. Noro1 also teaches:
wherein when the first clinical data and the second clinical data are time-series data, the processing circuitry (processing circuitry 130 ) is configured to designate a first time zone on a time axis of the first clinical data, and specify the second clinical data in a second time zone that coincides or approximately coincides with the first time zone on a time axis of the second clinical data. (See at least [0050] via: “…the display control function 132 reads the prescription records stored in the memory 120 and displays the read prescription records in time series on a display 620 of the terminal device 600. Further, for example, by reading and executing programs corresponding to the display control function 132, the acquisition function 133, and the extracting function 134 from the memory 120, the processing circuitry 130 acquires a time range corresponding to an operation performed on any of the prescription records displayed in time series and further displays one or more pieces of medical image data corresponding to the time range on the display 620…”; in addition see at least [0054] via: “…The medical information processing system 1 … is configured to make it easy to compare the image data with the non-image data. ..,the medical information processing system makes it easy to compare the image data with the non-image data, by acquiring a time range corresponding to an operation performed on any of the pieces of non-image data displayed in time series and to display at least one of the pieces of image data corresponding to the time range...” ) The Examiner notes that the read prescription records correspond to the second medical data, and the medical image data corresponds to the first clinical data, and furthermore that both are displayed as corresponding time series. As an example see fig. 7 displaying a time series of medical images starting on 6-12-2017 through 6-17-207 and see fig. 3 displaying a time series of prescription records starting 6-11 through 6-21, where they coincide timewise between 6-12 to 6-17.
Regarding claim 3 Noro1, Hiramatsu, Noro2 and Brooks teach the invention as claimed and detailed with respect to claim 1. However Noro1, Hiramatsu and Brooks are silent the following claim that is taught by Noro2:
wherein the viewing history is each combination of the plurality of pieces of clinical data viewed simultaneously by the user, and the processing circuitry is configured to specify one or more pieces of clinical data that are included in one or more first combinations including the first clinical data that and that are different from the first clinical data, as the second clinical data. (See at least [0074] via: “…as illustrated in FIG. 16, when the display 140 is a high-resolution display, the determining function 153 arranges the different type of image data 61 and the medication data 71 serving as the peripheral data categorized as the information having a high possibility of being compared with the principal data 31 to be positioned on the lower side of the principal data 31 arranged at the center of the display screen. In these situations, according to the type and the resolution of the display 140, the determining function 153 arranges the different type of image data 61 and the medication data 71 so as to be contained in the area defined by the “application width” and the “application height” set in the screen configuration information..”; in addition see at least [0037] via: “…the specifying function 151 may specify principal data on the basis of an operation history of the operator...”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Noro1 and Hiramatsu to incorporate the teachings of Noro2. Those in the art would have recognized that Noro1’s teaching regarding pieces of first medical data each of which includes image data indicating medical information and pieces of second medical data each of which is included in data indicating medical information and is other than the first medical data, so that the pieces of first medical data and the pieces of second medical data are associated with times and displayed as time series, could be modified to include Noro2’s teaching regarding displaying historically viewed medical images and medication data simultaneously, and associated by time and displayed as a time series on a common time axis as shown in fig. 15. The combination of Noro1 and Noro2 is useful to medical personnel in being able to simultaneously observe how medical images of a patient may correlate it time with the administration of medication.
Regarding claim 4 Noro1, Hiramatsu, Noro2 and Brooks teach the invention as claimed and detailed with respect to claim 1&3. However Noro1, Hiramatsu and Brooks are silent the following claim that is taught by Noro2:
wherein the viewing history is a viewing time or a viewing frequency for the each combination of the plurality of pieces of clinical data viewed simultaneously by the user, and the processing circuitry is configured to specify one or more second combinations including a viewing time or a viewing frequency that is equal to or greater than a threshold value, among the first combinations, and then specify one or more pieces of clinical data that are included in the second combinations and are different from the first clinical data, as the second clinical data (See at least [0013] via: “…A medical information processing apparatus according to an embodiment includes a specifying unit, an obtaining unit, a determining unit, and a display controlling unit. The specifying unit is configured to specify principal data from among a plurality of types of diagnosis/treatment data. The obtaining unit is configured to obtain peripheral data that is diagnosis/treatment data having a high degree of relevance to the principal data, by using the principal data as a reference...”; in addition see at least [0045] via: “…In this situation, on the basis of identification information contained in the diagnosis/treatment data, the obtaining function 152 categorizes the peripheral data as one of: information of the same type as the principal data; information explaining the principal data; and information having a high possibility of being compared with the principal data. After that, the obtaining function 152 derives the degree of relevance on the basis of which of the following the peripheral data is: the information of the same type as the principal data; the information explaining the principal data; and the information having a high possibility of being compared with the principal data..”; in addition see at least [0057] via: “…by referring to the relevance degree information stored in the storage 120, the obtaining function 152 derives a degree of relevance for each piece of diagnosis/treatment data, obtains such diagnosis/treatment data of which the degree of relevance is equal to or higher than the threshold value as the peripheral data from the integrated management DB, and categorizes the peripheral data as the information having a high possibility of being compared with the principal data. In this situation, deriving the degrees of relevance denotes obtaining the degrees of relevance from the relevance degree information…”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Noro1 and Hiramatsu to incorporate the teachings of Noro2. Those in the art would have recognized that Noro1’s teaching regarding pieces of first medical data each of which includes image data indicating medical information and pieces of second medical data each of which is included in data indicating medical information and is other than the first medical data, so that the pieces of first medical data and the pieces of second medical data are associated with times and displayed as time series, could be modified to include Noro2’s teaching regarding displaying as a time series on a common time axis as shown in fig. 15 combined medical images and medication data simultaneously, defined as both principal combined medical data and peripheral combined medical data, and by furthermore deriving a degree of relevance equal or higher than a threshold value. The combination of Noro1 and Noro2 is useful to medical personnel in being able to identify relevant second combination peripheral medical data/diagnosis/treatment based on a given threshold of relevance compared to the first principal combination medical data/diagnosis/treatment that would help medical personnel in evaluating alternative treatments that may be as good or better compared to the first principal combination of data.
Regarding claim 5 Noro1, Hiramatsu, Noro2 and Brooks teach the invention as claimed and detailed with respect to claim 1. However Noro1 and Hiramatsu are silent the following claim that is taught by Noro2:
wherein the viewing history is a viewing order related to an order in which the user viewed the plurality of pieces of clinical data, and the processing circuitry is configured to specify, as the second clinical data, one or more pieces of clinical data viewed within ±Nth (N is a natural number) from the first clinical data as a standard. (See at least [0067] via: “… as illustrated in FIG. 11, when the display 140 is an HMD, the determining function 153 arranges pieces of peripheral data 41 categorized as the information of the same type as the principal data 31 to be positioned side by side along a time axis set in the horizontal direction (the left-and-right direction) while being centered on the principal data 31 arranged in the straight-on position of the line of sight of the operator O…”; in addition see at least [0068] via: “…the determining function 153 arranges the pieces of peripheral data 41 acquired earlier than the principal data 31 to be positioned side by side on the left-hand side of the principal data 31, according to the order of acquisition times, starting with the closest one to that of the principal data 31. Further, the determining function 153 arranges the pieces of peripheral data 41 acquired later than the principal data 31 to be positioned side by side on the right-hand side of the principal data 31, according to the order of acquisition times starting with the closest one to that of the principal data 31. Further for example, the determining function 153 displays information indicating the acquisition times of the pieces of data so as to be superimposed on the principal data 31 and the pieces of peripheral data 41 (e.g., “2017/10/01”, “2017/10/07”, … “2017/10/20”, and “2017/11/01” in FIGS. 11 and 12)..”; in addition see at least [0074] via: “…as illustrated in FIG. 15, when the display 140 is an HMD, the determining function 153 arranges different type of image data 61 and medication data 71 serving as peripheral data categorized as the information having a high possibility of being compared with the principal data 31 to be positioned on the lower side of the principal data 31 arranged in the straight-on position of the line of sight of the operator O..”; in addition see at least [0076] via: “… when a plurality of pieces of peripheral data having mutually-different acquisition times have been obtained as the pieces of peripheral data categorized as the information having a high possibility of being compared with the principal data 31, the determining function 153 arranges the pieces of peripheral data to be positioned side by side in the horizontal direction along the same time axis as that of the principal data 31. For example, as illustrated in FIGS. 15 and 16, the determining function 153 arranges a plurality of pieces of different types of image data 61 having mutually-different acquisition times to be positioned along the same time axis as that of the principal data 31 and arranges the prescription time period of the medication data 71 to be on the same scale of the time axis as that of the principal data 31…”) The Examiner interprets the “standard first clinical data” or principal clinical data as the one depicted at time 2017/10/11 in Fig. 11 and the “second clinical data” as peripheral data that distant some N units in time from clinical data considered a standard reference depicted at times “2017/10/01”, “2017/10/07”, … “2017/10/20”, “2017/11/01”, whereby 2017/10/01 could be defined as N=-2; 2017/10/07 as N=-1; 2017/10/20 as N=1; 2017/11/01 as N=2 and so forth.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Noro1 and Hiramatsu to incorporate the teachings of Noro2. Those in the art would have recognized that Noro1’s teaching regarding pieces of first medical data each of which includes image data indicating medical information and pieces of second medical data each of which is included in data indicating medical information and is other than the first medical data, so that the pieces of first medical data and the pieces of second medical data are associated with times and displayed as time series, could be modified to include Noro2’s teaching regarding displaying medical images and medication data simultaneously, and associated by time and displayed as a time series on a common time axis as shown in fig. 15. The combination of Noro1 and Noro2 is useful to medical personnel in being able to simultaneously observe how medical images of a patient may correlate in time with the administration of medication and observe the before and after peripheral data compared to a chosen principal or standard data to see any changes based on treatment on the patient within a time continuum.
Regarding claim 7 Noro1, Hiramatsu, Noro2 and Brooks teach the invention as claimed and detailed with respect to claims 1. However Noro1 and Hiramatsu are silent the following claim that is taught by Noro2:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to associate a comment input by the user with the display data. (See at least [0080] via: “…as illustrated in FIG. 17, when the display 140 is an HMD, the display controlling function 154 displays the principal data 31 in a straight-on position of the line of sight of the operator O. Further, the display controlling function 154 displays the pieces of peripheral data 41 categorized as the information of the same type as the principal data 31, so as to be positioned side by side along the time axis set in the horizontal direction and to be centered on the principal data 31. Further, above the principal data 31, the display controlling function 154 displays the peripheral data 51 categorized as the information explaining the principal data 31. Furthermore, on the lower side of the principal data 31, the display controlling function 154 displays the different type of image data 61 and the medication data 71 serving as the peripheral data categorized as the information having a high possibility of being compared with the principal data 31..”; in addition see at least [0072] via: “…when there is more than one piece of peripheral data 51 categorized as the information explaining the principal data 31, the determining function 153 arranges the pieces of peripheral data 51 to be positioned side by side on the upper side of the principal data 31, according to the order of levels of detail, starting with the closest one to the level of detail of the principal data 31…”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Noro1 and Hiramatsu to incorporate the teachings of Noro2. Those in the art would have recognized that Noro1’s teaching regarding pieces of first medical data each of which includes image data indicating medical information and pieces of second medical data each of which is included in data indicating medical information and is other than the first medical data, so that the pieces of first medical data and the pieces of second medical data are associated with times and displayed as time series, could be modified to include Noro2’s teaching regarding displaying medical images and medication data simultaneously, and associated by time and displayed as a time series on a common time axis as shown in fig. 15 with the addition of a display located above the principal medical image that containing information relevant information about the principal medical image. The combination of Noro1 and Noro2 is useful to medical personnel in being able to simultaneously observe how medical images of a patient may correlate it time with the administration of medication and to in addition obtain additional information displayed as comments related to the particular medical image at a specific time of a patient.
Regarding claim 8 Noro1, Hiramatsu, Noro2 and Brooks teach the invention as claimed and detailed with respect to claims 1 & 7. Noro1 also teaches:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to transmit the display data and the comment to one or more other users different from the user. (See at least [0031] via: “…As illustrated in FIG. 1, the medical information processing apparatus 100 is connected, via the network 200, to the PACS server 300, the electronic medical record storage apparatus 400, the specimen examination server 500, and the terminal device 600 so as to be able to communicate therewith. For example, the medical information processing apparatus 100, the PACS server 300, the electronic medical record storage apparatus 400, and the specimen examination server 500 are installed in a hospital and are connected to one another via the network 200 realized by an intra-hospital Local Area Network (LAN) or the like. Further, for example, the terminal device 600 is realized by using a personal computer or a tablet or the like that can be carried around by an operator such as a doctor, a nurse, or the like and is connected, via the network 200, to the medical information processing apparatus 100, the PACS server 300, the electronic medical record storage apparatus 400, and the specimen examination server 500 so as to be able to communicate therewith. ..”; in addition see at least [0065] via: “…display control function 132 displays the doses of the medication M14 to the patient P1 in time series as illustrated in FIG. 2D, by plotting the administered times and the doses of the medication M14 to the patient P1 according to the X coordinates illustrated in FIG. 2P and the Y coordinates illustrated in FIG. 22. FIG. 2D is a drawing illustrating an example of the displaying of the prescription records in time series..”) The Examiner notes that display data and comment as taught by Noro1 and Noro2 are available to be accessed by a variety of users by connecting to the intra-hospital LAN as taught by Noro1.
Regarding claim 10 Noro1, Hiramatsu, Noro2 and Brooks teach the invention as claimed and detailed with respect to claim 1. Noro1 is silent the following claim that is taught by Hiramatsu:
wherein the viewing history is a viewing order related to an order in which the user viewed the plurality of pieces of clinical data. (See at least [0013] via: “…a clinical information display means that receives an input of an instruction to display clinical information about the patient on a display device by a user belonging to one of the plurality of user groups, and that selects a display setting to be used for display of this time from the history of display setting stored in the display history storage means in such a manner to be linked with the one of the plurality of user groups to which the user belongs, and that displays the clinical information about the patient on the display device by using the selected display setting…”; in addition see at least [0049] via: “…When the clinical information management server 10 receives a request for retrieval of clinical information about a patient from the client terminal 20, the clinical information management server 10 refers to correspondence table T about the patient stored in the display history database 12. Further, the clinical information management server 10 selects the most recent history of display setting stored in such a manner to be linked with a user group to which the user of the client terminal 20 belongs. The clinical information management server 10 retrieves and extracts clinical information from the clinical information database 11 based on the selected display setting. The clinical information management server 10 sends the extracted clinical information to the client terminal 20 that has requested the clinical information…”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Noro1 to incorporate the teachings of Hiramatsu. Those in the art would have recognized that Noro1’s teaching regarding pieces of first medical data each of which includes image data indicating medical information and pieces of second medical data each of which is included in data indicating medical information and is other than the first medical data, so that the pieces of first medical data and the pieces of second medical data are associated with times and displayed as time series, could be modified to include Hiramatsu’s teaching regarding a display setting for display selected from the history of display-setting stored in a display history storage in such a manner to be linked with the one of the plural user groups, whereby the patient's clinical information is displayed on the display device by using the selected display-setting. The combination of Noro1 and Hiramatsu is useful to medical personnel whereby a set of medical image data previously ordered sequentially with medical meaning and stored by a doctor may be quickly and easily accessed from a storage unit when reviewing a plurality of medical data pertaining to a patient
Regarding claim 11 Noro1, Hiramatsu, Noro2 and Brooks teach the invention as claimed and detailed with respect to claims 1& 5. However Noro1, Hiramatsu and Brooks are silent the following claim that is taught by Noro2:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to set N according to an input from the user (input operations received from the operator) (See at least [0024] via: “…The input interface 130 is connected to the processing circuitry 150 and is configured to receive input operations of various types of instructions and various types of information from an operator. More specifically, the input interface 130 is configured to convert the input operations received from the operator into electrical signals and to output the electrical signals to the processing circuitry 150…”; in addition see at least [0067] via: “… as illustrated in FIG. 11, when the display 140 is an HMD, the determining function 153 arranges pieces of peripheral data 41 categorized as the information of the same type as the principal data 31 to be positioned side by side along a time axis set in the horizontal direction (the left-and-right direction) while being centered on the principal data 31 arranged in the straight-on position of the line of sight of the operator O…”; in addition see at least [0068] via: “…the determining function 153 arranges the pieces of peripheral data 41 acquired earlier than the principal data 31 to be positioned side by side on the left-hand side of the principal data 31, according to the order of acquisition times, starting with the closest one to that of the principal data 31. Further, the determining function 153 arranges the pieces of peripheral data 41 acquired later than the principal data 31 to be positioned side by side on the right-hand side of the principal data 31, according to the order of acquisition times starting with the closest one to that of the principal data 31. Further for example, the determining function 153 displays information indicating the acquisition times of the pieces of data so as to be superimposed on the principal data 31 and the pieces of peripheral data 41 (e.g., “2017/10/01”, “2017/10/07”, … “2017/10/20”, and “2017/11/01” in FIGS. 11 and 12)..”; in addition see at least [0074] via: “…as illustrated in FIG. 15, when the display 140 is an HMD, the determining function 153 arranges different type of image data 61 and medication data 71 serving as peripheral data categorized as the information having a high possibility of being compared with the principal data 31 to be positioned on the lower side of the principal data 31 arranged in the straight-on position of the line of sight of the operator O..”; in addition see at least [0076] via: “… when a plurality of pieces of peripheral data having mutually-different acquisition times have been obtained as the pieces of peripheral data categorized as the information having a high possibility of being compared with the principal data 31, the determining function 153 arranges the pieces of peripheral data to be positioned side by side in the horizontal direction along the same time axis as that of the principal data 31. For example, as illustrated in FIGS. 15 and 16, the determining function 153 arranges a plurality of pieces of different types of image data 61 having mutually-different acquisition times to be positioned along the same time axis as that of the principal data 31 and arranges the prescription time period of the medication data 71 to be on the same scale of the time axis as that of the principal data 31…”; in addition see at least [0139] via: “…the determining function 153 receives an operation to designate either one of the personal computers or one of the participants, via the input interface 130 or any of the personal computers. After that, when having received the operation, the determining function 153 switches the screen configuration of the principal data and the peripheral data displayed on the display screen of the designated personal computer or participant, to a screen configuration for the high resolution display. Subsequently, by using the screen configuration resulting from the switching by the determining function 153, the display controlling function 154 displays, on the high resolution display, the principal data and the peripheral data displayed on the display screen of the designated personal computer or participant…”) The Examiner interprets the “standard first clinical data” or principal clinical data as the one depicted at time 2017/10/11 in Fig. 11 and the “second clinical data” as peripheral data that distant some N units in time from clinical data considered a standard reference depicted at times “2017/10/01”, “2017/10/07”, … “2017/10/20”, “2017/11/01”, whereby 2017/10/01 could be defined as N=-2; 2017/10/07 as N=-1; 2017/10/20 as N=1; 2017/11/01 as N=2 and so forth set by the operator through instructions sent to the determining function.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Noro1 and Hiramatsu to incorporate the teachings of Noro2. Those in the art would have recognized that Noro1’s teaching regarding pieces of first medical data each of which includes image data indicating medical information and pieces of second medical data each of which is included in data indicating medical information and is other than the first medical data, so that the pieces of first medical data and the pieces of second medical data are associated with times and displayed as time series, could be modified to include Noro2’s teaching regarding displaying medical images and medication data simultaneously, and associated by time and displayed as a time series on a common time axis as shown in fig. 15. The combination of Noro1 and Noro2 is useful to medical personnel in being able to simultaneously observe how medical images of a patient may correlate in time with the administration of medication and observe the before and after peripheral data compared to a chosen principal or standard data to see any changes based on treatment on the patient within a time continuum.
Regarding claim 12 Noro1, Hiramatsu, Noro2 and Brooks teach the invention as claimed and detailed with respect to claims 1. However Noro1, Hiramatsu and Brooks are silent the following claim that is taught by Noro2:
The medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the first clinical data and the second clinical data are combined in the one graph. output display data for collectively displaying the first clinical data and on a common time axis in one graph to the terminal (See at least [0074] via: “…as illustrated in FIG. 16, when the display 140 is a high-resolution display, the determining function 153 arranges the different type of image data 61 and the medication data 71 serving as the peripheral data categorized as the information having a high possibility of being compared with the principal data 31 to be positioned on the lower side of the principal data 31 arranged at the center of the display screen. In these situations, according to the type and the resolution of the display 140, the determining function 153 arranges the different type of image data 61 and the medication data 71 so as to be contained in the area defined by the “application width” and the “application height” set in the screen configuration information..”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Noro1 and Hiramatsu to incorporate the teachings of Noro2. Those in the art would have recognized that Noro1’s teaching regarding pieces of first medical data each of which includes image data indicating medical information and pieces of second medical data each of which is included in data indicating medical information and is other than the first medical data, so that the pieces of first medical data and the pieces of second medical data are associated with times and displayed as time series, could be modified to include Noro2’s teaching regarding displaying medical images and medication data simultaneously, and associated by time and displayed as a time series on a common time axis as shown in fig. 15. The combination of Noro1 and Noro2 is useful to medical personnel in being able to simultaneously observe how medical images of a patient may correlate in time with the administration of medication.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and is listed in the attached form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited). Unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, all documents listed on form PTO-892 are cited in their entirety.
TSUGO (US 20170017761 A1) - MEDICAL CARE SUPPORT DEVICE AND METHOD, AND MEDICAL CARE INFORMATION STORAGE DEVICE AND METHOD - teaches: Provided is a medical care support device capable of allowing a causal relationship in a plurality of pieces of medical care information to be simply ascertained, and performing accumulation of information so that a causal relationship serving as a basis of clinical decision or a group of causal relationships can be simply ascertained. A medical care support server generates, on the basis of an instruction from a client terminal, set information in which a plurality of pieces of first and second information corresponding to each of a plurality of specified positions in different pieces of time-series data are associated with each other, groups one or more pieces of set information in units of clinical decision according to a grouping instruction to create an information group, and accumulates the information group in a disease example DB. Clinical decision can be added to the information groups.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7-7-2025, have been fully considered but not found
persuasive.
Applicant amended claims 1, 7, deleted claims 6, 9 and added claim 12 as posted in the above analysis.
In response to applicant's arguments regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Several steps are taken in the analysis as to whether an invention is rejected under 101. The first step is to determine if the claim falls within a statutory category. In this case it does for claims 1 and 9 since the claims recites a method, apparatus and system of creating and administrating user records containing medical and demographic data.
The second step under 2A prong one is to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, which would be the case if the invention can be grouped as either: a) mathematical concepts; (b) mental processes; or (c) certain methods of organizing human activity (encompassing (i) fundamental economic principles, (ii) commercial or legal interactions or (iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). The current invention is classified as an abstract idea since it may be grouped as a mental process as it recites “medical information processing”. Alternatively, the selected abstract idea belongs to the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as it recites “medical information processing”
The third step under 2A Prong Two is to determine if additional elements in the claim imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea in order to integrate it into a practical idea. The current invention does not represent a practical idea since the additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
the fourth step under 2B is to determine if additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept. An invention may be classified as an inventive concept if a computer-implemented processes is determined to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic, and non-conventional even if generic computer operations on a generic computing device is used to implement the abstract idea. The current invention does not represent an inventive concept since the additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong ONE
The Applicant argues that Claim 1 recites a system having a plurality of structural components, not an abstract idea. The medical information processing apparatus, terminal and database, as well as processing circuitry configured to receive and respond to a request from a terminal and designate data corresponding to the request from data stored in a database are individually or considered together not mental processes but part of a structural system. Furthermore the Applicant argues that the system of Claim 1 cannot be practically performed in the mind. Receiving information from a terminal, displaying information on a terminal and outputting data to a terminal are electrical processes performed by electrical devices and cannot practically be performed in the mind. Furthermore, the terminal, selecting on clinical data and producing a pop-up on a screen are tangible and not mental
The Examiner disagrees since the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The method used to select the abstract idea, is to strip the additional elements from the claims. As seen below the recited boldened words constitute the abstract idea after stripping the un-boldened additional elements of amended limitation of claim 1:
Claim 1:
A medical information processing system comprising:
a medical information processing apparatus, a terminal, and a database, wherein the medical information processing apparatus includes processing circuitry configured to:
receive a request for viewing predetermined clinical data from the terminal;
designate one or more pieces of first clinical data corresponding to the request among a plurality of pieces of clinical data stored in the database;
specify one or more pieces of second clinical data associated with the first clinical data among plurality of pieces of clinical data viewed by a user based on a viewing history of the user, the viewing history being related to the plurality of pieces of clinical data viewed by the user; and
output display data for collectively displaying the first clinical data and the second clinical data on a common time axis in one graph to the terminal, and
the terminal is configured to display data in which a content of the second clinical data is displayed on a pop-up when the user selects the second clinical data.
The selected abstract idea (boldened limitations) of claims 1 can be implemented by pencil and paper and thus belong to the grouping of mental processes under concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) as it recites “medical information processing”. Alternatively, the selected abstract idea belongs to the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity under managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people as it recites “medical information processing”. (refer to MPP 2106.04(a)(2)). Accordingly this claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong TWO
The Applicant offers no argument as to whether that the claimed subject matter is directed to a practical application.
What is required for the invention to be directed to a practical application is a demonstration of improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field that the invention has recited.
The Examiner restates that claim 1 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 1 does not recite additional elements that impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea:
Claim 1 recite the following additional element:
a medical information processing apparatus;
a terminal;
a database;
wherein the medical information processing apparatus includes processing circuitry;
output .. data to the terminal;
the terminal is configured to display data in which a content of the second clinical data is displayed on a pop-up when the user selects the second clinical data
The elements as recited above for claim 1 amount to additional elements that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Support for this can be found in the specification, paragraphs (page 7, lines 17-26 and page 8, lines 1-27 and page 9, lines 1-27) (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In order to integrate the abstract idea into a practical idea the Applicant could demonstrate at least one of the conditions enumerated below applies:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The Applicant has not demonstrated any of the above listed conditions. As a result, the Examiner restates the rejection of the invention under 35 USC §101.
Step 2B
Similar to the analysis under Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Support for this can be found in the specification, paragraphs (page 7, lines 17-26 and page 8, lines 1-27 and page 9, lines 1-27) (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). The use of generic computer components, in combination, do not perform functions that are not merely generic, and non-conventional even if the generic computer operations on a generic computing device is used to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim does not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) and hence the claim is ineligible.
In order evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept what could be shown is:
Adding a specific limitation (unconventional other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d)
The Applicant has not demonstrated the above listed condition.
In response to applicant's arguments regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103.
The applicant argues that the following amended limitations of claim 1 are not disclosed by the cited references:
1- output display data for collectively displaying the first clinical data and the second clinical data on a common time axis in one graph to the terminal, and
2- the terminal is configured to display data in which a content of the second clinical data is displayed on a pop-up when the user selects the second clinical data
Furthermore the applicant argues that the newly added claim 12 is not disclosed by the cited references:
3- The medical information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the first clinical data and the second clinical data are combined in the one graph
The Examiner disagrees since the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding the first limitation of claim 1: It is taught by Noro2 paragraph [0074].
Regarding the second limitation of claim 1: The Applicant’s argument is moot since its taught by newly introduces art by Blooks paragraphs [0010], [0084], [0085]
Regarding the third limitation corresponding to claim 12: It is taught by Noro2 paragraph [0074].
For reasons of record and as set forth above, the examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-12 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, and thereby being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 USC §101 in addition to maintaining the rejection under 35 USC §103. In reaching this decision, the Examiner considered all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Applicant.
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 PIERRE L MACCAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-5408. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 to 5:00.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571)270-1813. 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.
/PIERRE L MACCAGNO/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights