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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office action in response to communication received on 8/28/2025. Claims 1-16 and 18-23 are pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 15-16, and 22 are acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation of claim 17 is acknowledged. Applicant’s addition of new claim 23 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
On remarks page 12, Applicant argues the prior art rejection. The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is noted that the Examiner maintains the previous response and position with respect to the prior art and Applicant’s claims (cited herein for convenience, see Final Office Action pages 3-5):
Examiner notes that Applicant recites many broad limitations in the independent
claims for correlating search query information with other information to refine a medical
search query. Applicant's amendments here recite another broad additional correlation
to search query information to refine a medical search query. Specifically, Applicant's
amendments in the independent claims recite result oriented claiming of correlating
various related information to a user's medical query to expand or redefine the query,
then perform action and provide search results to the user, where the search result
information may be highlighted according to a rule.
The cited prior art of Bucur et al. clearly performs the functions of taking a user's
search query (see paragraphs 0005), refining it or expanding it according to
conceptually related information (see paragraphs 0009-0012, 0019),refining queries and
providing results based on various rules including user defined rules (see paragraphs
0026-0027, 0030, 0055-0056, 0060-0061 ), where there may be multiple search queries
from a user's search query (see paragraph 0060). Bucur et al. teaches these results
may come from a search engine searching with refined medical query (see paragraphs
0063, 0066-0067).
Using the link between the medical information and the rules repository to refine
the medical query (see paragraphs 0010 and 0019-0021 ), is interpreted as a finding for
the input term or the further term. However it is importantly noted that "finding" is a very
broad term in the claims it could read on many different aspects of Bucur et al. like
patient fields (see paragraph 0023), rankings (see paragraph 0031 ), generating multiple queries based on the query (see paragraph 0060), various user history (see paragraphs 0026-0027), etc. as all these are used to provide targeted or customized search results to the user.
With respect to actions again action is a broad term and could read on many
limitations of Bucur et al., as Bucur et al. teaches multiple ways the term may be further
refined according to rules(e.g. actions) like searching or not searching specific areas,
user's own medical information, various user's previous searching history, and
searching a rules repository, in order to provide customized search results to the user.
Therefore these various rules based on what information to display are therefore based on the broadly recited "clinical context", "patient information", and "the finding."
As shown above and in the prior art rejection below, the cited prior art of Bucur et
al. clearly teaches correlating numerous related information to a user's medical query to
expand or redefine the query, then perform action where the action may be defined by a
user and provide search results to the user, where the search result information may be
displayed according to or because of a rule. These are actions a user is expected to
wish to perform as they are based on user defined rules (see paragraphs 0055-0056) or for example user history (see paragraphs 0026-0027), in order to provide the most
relevant information to the user based on ranking (see paragraphs 0031-0032).
Bucur et al. just does not expressly teach displaying information on a screen or
highlighting search results however the secondary reference of DaBoll-Lavoie teaches
such missing limitations.
Therefore based on the above the Examiner respectfully disagrees and
maintains the rejection.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments “The selection of the rule is different from selecting of the at least one stored action. Bucur does not involve any stored action which is an action that is expected a user will wish to perform. Claim 1 also recites that the at least one stored action is an action that is expected a user will wish to perform based on the clinical context, patient information included in the first
medical data, and the finding. While the Office Action considers terms such as clinical context, patient information and finding are "broadly recited" there is no selection of a stored action based upon all of these terms.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees as the Examiner interprets this to be taught by Bucur, specifically as discussed above:
With respect to actions again action is a broad term and could read on many
limitations of Bucur et al., as Bucur et al. teaches multiple ways the term may be further
refined according to rules(e.g. actions) like searching or not searching specific areas,
user's own medical information, various user's previous searching history, and
searching a rules repository, in order to provide customized search results to the user.
Therefore these various rules based on what information to display are therefore based on the broadly recited "clinical context", "patient information", and "the finding."
As shown above and in the prior art rejection below, the cited prior art of Bucur et
al. clearly teaches correlating numerous related information to a user's medical query to
expand or redefine the query, then perform action where the action may be defined by a
user and provide search results to the user, where the search result information may be
displayed according to or because of a rule. These are actions a user is expected to
wish to perform as they are based on user defined rules (see paragraphs 0055-0056) or for example user history (see paragraphs 0026-0027), in order to provide the most
relevant information to the user based on ranking (see paragraphs 0031-0032).
With respect to Applicant’s arguments on pages 12-13 that Bucur does not teach displaying and highlighting of the displayed information, the Examiner argues. The secondary reference of DaBoll-Lavoie is relied upon to teach highlighting as detailed in the prior art rejection below;
As per Applicant’s arguments “Bucur only refines medical inquiries by, for example, refining a search term to link other information such as a medical information item or therapy options, medicines or tests ([0055] and [0061]). No user action is performed based on this refinement to select a rule.” The Examiner strongly disagrees. As discussed above, Bucur teaches providing a user action a user is expected to perform as broadly recited in the claims.
As to Applicant’s arguments on page 13 with respect to DaBoll-Lavoie, specifically “DaBoll-Lavoie also does not disclose or suggest the processing circuitry of Claim 1 configured to perform said at least one stored action associated with the at least one further term automatically on second medical data for the subject, wherein the performing of said at least one stored action comprises selecting a
rule corresponding to the clinical context from a plurality of rules for identifying among
information to be displayed on a screen a piece of information satisfying and highlighting the identified piece of information. “ The Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. DaBoll-Lavoie is only relied upon to teach highlighting those results based on the expanded query and providing them to the user on a screen as detailed in the prior art rejection below. Specifically, In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As to Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-14, with respect to independent claims 15-16, and 22, these arguments have been addressed above with respect to claim 1.
On pages 15-16 of Remarks, Applicant argues the 101 rejection. Here specifically Applicant argues “ As a whole, Claim 1 provides improvements in the presentation of medical information. Claim 1 is clearly integrates any alleged abstract idea into a practical application of displaying more relevant information automatically avoiding further processing involved with the user having to requesting the information automatically provided. The system also avoids the waste of processing resources running less speculative processes.”
The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments and understands Applicant’s arguments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically here in claim 1 the limitations are recited at such a high level of abstraction and result oriented claiming, that the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human or humans could perform collecting data, aggregating and correlating that collected data to conceptually related data, and providing an output related to the collecting, aggregating, and correlating of data.
For one mere example of this a human could request information related to “health improvement”, another human for example like a secretary could provide information related to that request (for example by searching different resources and through research finding information of relevance to the boss based on information known about the boss or from researching health improvement, like for weight loss, diet, exercise, support groups by the office, etc.). Further the secretary could highlight that information and provide it to the boss to show why it was provided to them as well as show them or point them where to get more information about the topic.
This avoiding of wasting resources is done in the abstract idea as the boss’s time isn’t wasted finding the information as the secretary does it. Further resources are not wasted as the secretary knows information like location of where support groups for example would be helpful (e.g. near the office rather than 1000 miles away) to avoid a speculative process. It is noted as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a) when the improvement is found in the abstract idea, this is not itself an improvement in technology, See MPEP 2106.05(a) “However, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology.”
Further the additional elements that this is done automatically merely results in apply it. Specifically here the additional elements in the claims merely recite or provide a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words apply it. See MPEP 2106.05(f) “The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem"))”
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 1-16 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-14 and 23 recite a machine as the claims recite a system with processing circuitry. Claim 15 recite a process as the claims recite a method. Claims 16 and 18-20 recite a machine as the claims recite a system comprising processing circuitry. Claim 22 recites a process as the claims recite a method.
The claims 1-16 and 18-23 recite(s) collecting data, aggregating and correlating that collected data to conceptually related data, and providing an output related to the collecting, aggregating, and correlating of data.
The claims are recited at such a high level of generality that they recite observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions that could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, accordingly the claims recite a mental process.
Further collecting data, aggregating and correlating that collected data to conceptually related data, and providing an output related to the collecting, aggregating, and correlating of data is additionally subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is business relations which is certain methods of organizing human activity. Mental Processes and certain methods of organizing human activity are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite: limitations that are recited at such a high level of generality that they recite functions or limitations that could be performed by a human or human like collecting data, aggregating and correlating that collected data to conceptually related data, and providing an output related to the collecting, aggregating, and correlating of data. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea of functions instead being performed “automatically”, “by processing circuitry”/ “processor”, “on a screen”, a “user interface”, a “display having an interactive function”, through “icons”, stored data accessed by circuitry/ database stored in a non-transitory storage device, merely recite limitations previously found by the courts to not result in a practical application or significantly more, specifically:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), Specifically as recited in the claims by the additional elements of:
- processing circuitry configured to:/ instructs the processing circuitry (see claims
1 , 16, and 22)
- the processing circuity is further configured to: (see claim 6, 10-11, 13, 16, and 21-23)
-processor (see claims 15 and 22)
-a database stored in a non-transitory storage device (see claim 1)
-on a screen/ the screen (see claims 1, 15-16, and 22)
-automatically (see claim 1, 15-16, and 22)
-user interface (see claim 14)
-a display having an interactive function (see claim 14)
-icon (see claim 23)
This is recitation at the mere “apply it” level as the claims invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process (of collecting data, aggregating and correlating that collected data to conceptually related data, and providing an output related to the collecting, aggregating, and correlating of data). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome, in that the claims fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished as the claim limitations recite only a result oriented solution and lack details as to how the computer performs the modifications which is equivalent to the words “apply it”
(2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Specifically as recited in the claims: specifically as recited in the claims mere data gathering in conjunction with the abstract idea, like storing data and displaying icons (see claims 1, 3, 8-10, 12, 15-16, and 22-23)
and (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Specifically as recited in the claims these limitations recite limitations a human or humans could perform as discussed above, instead performing them by the additional high level computer elements listed above generally links the use of the judicial exception to the medical search engine technological environment or field of use (see claims 1-16 and 18-23)
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite:
(1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)), and Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Further with respect to the mere data gathering in (2), these limitations when reconsidered under the significantly more (inventive concept step) merely recite:
(1) Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo). Specifically as recited in the claims:
(a) electronic recordkeeping (see claims 1, 3, 8-10, 12, 15-16, and 22) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-07.2022](cited herein): Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log)
(b) storing and retrieving information in memory (see claims 1, 3, 8-10, 12, 15-16, and 22) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-07.2022]( Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93)
(c) using icons as notifications (see claim 9 and 23)
- Tran et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number:
US 2010/0145934) paragraph 0019 " It will be appreciated by one of ordinary skill in the
art that the presence of these different search-result details may be indicated to the user
by a number of manners, such as an icon next to each search result indicating what
type of search-result detail may be obtained, etc."
-Ahn et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US
2011/0173193) paragraph 0039" The search results provided in the search results
portion 354 include text, URL addresses, icons, advertisements, or any other content
known in the art to be provided as search results"
- Hashimoto (United States Patent Application Publication Number:
US 2012/0218596) paragraph 0012" For example, a technology has been
conventionally known such that, in an information processing system, an identification of
an electronic document is indicated in a list of electronic documents or in a list of search
results by displaying management information, an icon, or a thumbnail of the electronic
and (d) Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, like hyperlinks (see claim 23, MPEP 2106.05(d), Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added))
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. Claim(s) 1-16 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Bucur et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2013/0185099) further in view of DaBoll-Lavoie et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2019/0108274).
As per claim 1, Bucur et al. which is in the art of generating a refined
medical query (see abstract) teaches A clinical information system, comprising processing circuitry configured to: (see abstract and paragraphs 0039 and 0084, Examiner's note: medical query system that takes placed by software running on a computer).
receive a user input from a user, (see paragraph 0050-0051, Examiner's note: user inputs a query for example breast cancer or cancer).
wherein the user input instructs performing of a first action on first medical data for a subject; determine based on the user input and/or the first action at least one input term; determine at least one further term that is conceptually related to the at least one input term; obtaining a finding based in the at least one input term and/or the at least one further term; (see paragraphs 0009-0011, 0019-0021, 0023, 0031, 0026-0027 and 0052-0054, Examiner's note: these paragraphs teach finding a medical information item from a user search like for example non-mammary pain for a search of breast cancer, see paragraph 0052. Further teaches then using the link between the medical information and the rules repository to refine the medical query (see paragraphs 0010 and 0019-0021), which is interpreted as a finding for the input term or the further term. However this “finding” is a very broad term in the claims it could read on many different aspects of Bucur et al. like patient fields (see paragraph 0023), rankings (see paragraph 0031), generating multiple queries based on the query (see paragraph 0060), various user history (see paragraphs 0026-0027), etc).
select at least one stored action of a set of stored actions by searching a database stored in a non-transitory storage device, wherein the selecting of the at least one stored action comprises identifying a clinical context corresponding to the received user input and determining that the at least one stored action is associated with the at least one further term, wherein said stored action is an action that is expected a user will wish to perform based on the clinical context, patient information included in the first medical data, and the finding; perform said at least one stored action associated with the at least one further term automatically on second medical data for the subject, wherein the performing of said at least one stored action comprises selecting a rule corresponding to the clinical context from a plurality of rules for identifying among information to be displayed to a user a piece of information and providing the identified piece of information; (see paragraphs 0022-0024, 0026-0027, 0055-0056, and 0061, Examiner's note: teaches multiple ways the term may be further refined according to rules(e.g. actions) like searching or not searching specific areas, user’s own medical information, user’s previous searching history, and searching a rules repository (see paragraphs 0022-0024, 0026-0027, 0055-0056, and 0061). Further teaches rules may be implemented in a non-transitory medium like a CD ROM (see paragraphs 0083-0084)).
provide to the user a notification of said stored action; and display to the user the identified piece of information based on the selected rule. (see paragraphs 0028-0031, 0033, 0041-0042, 0063-0066, and 0077-0078, Examiner’s note: teaches searching based on the refined query information from various sources and displaying it on a page. These results may be ranked and the search queries may be provided).
As shown above Bucur et al. clearly teaches providing search results based on a refined (e.g. expanded) query based on rules and an original query submitted by a user regarding medical information, however, Bucur et al. does not expressly teach highlighting those results based on the expanded query and providing them to the user on a screen or more specifically as recited in the claims of (1)and highlighting the identified piece of information, (2) information be to be displayed on a screen, (3) display the screen, and ( 4) information being highlighted.
However, DaBoll-Lavoie et al. which is in the art of determining concepts related to a specific search query of a user (see abstract) teaches highlighting those results based on the expanded query and providing them to the user on a screen or more specifically as recited in the claims of (1) and highlighting the identified piece of information, (2) information be to be displayed on a screen, (3) display the screen, and ( 4) information being highlighted (see paragraph 0091, 0093, 0114, 0088, and Figure 10, Examiner's note: providing a snippet of the document highlighting an expanded term utilized within the document (see paragraph 0114) and further paragraph 0088 and Figure 10 show an example of highlighting in search results. Further paragraphs 0091, 0093, and Figure 10 show presenting results on a screen).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bucur et al with the aforementioned teachings from DaBoll-Lavoie et al. with the motivation of providing a way to show emphasis of why a search result was returned and deemed relevant to a user on a known type of display (see DaBoll-Lavoie et al. paragraphs 0091, 0093, 0114, 0088, and Figure 10), when returning a search result on a refined query based on a query originally input by a user is known (see Bucur et al. paragraphs 0063, 0065-0067, 0077- 0078).
As per claim 2, Bucur et al. teaches
wherein the user input comprises a search term; (see paragraph 0050-0051, Examiner's note: user inputs a query for example breast cancer or cancer).
the at least one input term comprises the search term; the first medical data comprises text data; and the first action comprises a search of the first medical data for the search term. (see paragraphs 0009-0011 and 0052-0054, Examiner's note: these paragraphs teach finding a medical information item from a user search like for example non-mammary pain for a search of breast cancer, see paragraph 0052).
As per claim 3, Bucur et al teaches
wherein each stored action comprises a rule or algorithm, and the selecting of a rule corresponding to the clinical context comprises selecting a rule corresponding to the clinical context from the rules or algorithms in the set of stored actions. (see paragraphs 0055-0056, 0061, and 0026-0027, Examiner's note: teaches multiple ways the term may be further refined according to rules(e.g. actions) like searching or not searching specific areas, user history, and searching a rules repository).
As per claim 4, Bucur et al teaches
wherein the second medical data comprises at least one of vital signs data, laboratory data, observation data, medication data, or imaging data. (see paragraphs 0055-0056, 0061, 0071-0072, and 0026-0027, Examiner's note: teaches multiple ways the term may be further refined according to rules(e.g. actions) like searching or not searching specific areas, user history, and searching a rules repository. Examples provided here include at least observation (see paragraph 0061, 0026-0027, and 0055- 0056), medication (See paragraph 0071 ), and laboratory data (e.g. test results)(see paragraph 0072), though only one the alternatives is required by the claims).
As per claim 5, Bucur et al. teaches
wherein the determining of the at least one further term comprises using a clinical coding system, terminology or ontology to identify terms that are conceptually related to the input term. (see paragraphs 0017-0020 and 0068-0069, Examiner's note: teaches using medical ontology to further define and teaches in the breast cancer example in situ breast cancer).
As per claim 6, Bucur et al. teaches
wherein the first medical data comprises text data, and the processing circuitry is further configured to search the first medical data to identify instances of the terms that are conceptually related to the input term. (see paragraphs 0009-0011 and 0052-0054, Examiner's note: these paragraphs teach finding a medical information item from a user search like for example non-mammary pain for a search of breast cancer, see paragraph 0052).
As per claim 7, Bucur et al. teaches
wherein the determining of the at least one further term comprises excluding any term that is conceptually related to the input term but is not present in the text data (see paragraphs 0009-0011,0052-0054, and 0056, Examiner's note: these paragraphs teach finding a medical information item from a user search like for example non-mammary pain for a search of breast cancer, see paragraph 0052. The Examiner interprets this limitation to recite a term may be conceptually related to an input term but if it is not found the text data (reference data) it is not used. This is exactly what is happening in Bucur et al., the system is referencing another data in this specific example a medical guideline file in a specific medical domain to return a refined query, so if it is not in that medical guideline file in a specific medical domain even though it could potentially be conceptually related it is not returned. This is further additionally or alternatively shown in the system not searching certain files in paragraph 0056, e.g. there may be related data however the system would not return it as it does not search that specific medical information according to supplied rules).
As per claim 8, Bucur et al. teaches
wherein at least one of a), b) and c):- a) the selecting of the at least one stored action further comprises determining that the at least one stored action is associated with the input term; b) the selecting of the at least one stored action is in dependence on at least one item of patient information obtained from the first medical data; c) the selecting of the at least one stored action is in dependence on at least one item of patient information obtained from the second medical data. (see paragraphs 0055-0056, 0061, and 0026- 0027, Examiner's note: teaches multiple ways the term may be further refined according to rules(e.g. actions) like searching or not searching specific areas, user history, and searching a rules repository. Examiner notes that the Examiner interprets at least alternative (a) to be taught by the above cited sections, where only one is required by the claims based on the recited at least one of).
As per claim 9, Bucur et al. teaches
wherein the notification comprises at least one: of search results (see paragraphs 0063, 0065-0067, and 0077-0078, Examiner's note: teaches providing the refined user query to a search engine to be provided search results).
Bucur et al. does not expressly teach a list of search results or more specifically as recited in the claims at least one of: a) displaying an icon near to the user input; b) displaying an icon near to an instance of a further term in the first medical data; c) displaying a summary of results of the at least one stored action; d) displaying a list of results of the at least one stored action.
However, DaBoll-Lavoie et al. which is in the art of determining concepts related to a specific search query of a user (see abstract) teaches a list of search results or more specifically as recited in the claims at least one of: a) displaying an icon near to the user input; b) displaying an icon near to an instance of a further term in the first medical data; c) displaying a summary of results of the at least one stored action; d) displaying a list of results of the at least one stored action (see Figure 10 and 0094, Examiner's note: shows a listing of search results).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bucur et al in view of DaBoll-Lavoie et al. with the aforementioned teachings from DaBoll-Lavoie et al. with the motivation of providing a common way of presenting search results in a list to a user (see DaBoll-Lavoie et al. Figure 10), when providing search results to a user as a result of a refined search query provided to a search engine is known (see Bucur et al. paragraphs 0063, 0065-0067, and 0077-0078).
As per claim 10, Bucur et al. teaches
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display at least part of the second medical data and to provide results of the at least one stored action in the second medical data. (see paragraphs 0063, 0065-0067, 0077-0078, Examiner's note: teaches providing the refined user query to a search engine to be provided search results).
As shown above Bucur et al. clearly teaches providing search results based on a refined (e.g. expanded) query based on rules and an original query submitted by a user regarding medical information, however, Bucur et al. does not expressly teach highlighting those results based on the expanded query and providing them to the user or more specifically as recited in the claims of and to highlight results of the at least one stored action in the second medical data.
However, DaBoll-Lavoie et al. which is in the art of determining concepts related to a specific search query of a user (see abstract) teaches highlighting those results based on the expanded query and providing them to the user or more specifically as recited in the claims of and to highlight results of the at least one stored action in the second medical data (see paragraph 0114, 0088, and Figure 10, Examiner's note: providing a snippet of the document highlighting an expanded term utilized within the document (see paragraph 0114) and further paragraph 0088 and Figure 10 show an example of highlighting in search results).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bucur et al in view DaBoll-Lavoie et al. with the aforementioned teachings from DaBoll-Lavoie et al. with the motivation of providing a way to show emphasis of why a search result was returned and deemed relevant to a user (see DaBoll-Lavoie et al. paragraphs 0114, 0088, and Figure 10), when returning a search result on a refined query based on a query originally input by a user is known (see Bucur et al. paragraphs 0063, 0065-0067, 0077-0078).
As per claim 11, Bucur et al. teaches
wherein the first medical data comprises text data, (see paragraphs 0009-0011 and 0052-0054, Examiner's note: these paragraphs teach finding a medical information item from a user search like for example non-mammary pain for a search of breast cancer, see paragraph 0052).
and the processing circuitry is further configured to display at least part of the first medical data and to display instances of the at least one further term in the first medical data. (see paragraphs 0055-0056, 0061, 0026-0027, Examiner's note: teaches multiple ways the term may be further refined according to rules(e.g. actions) like searching or not searching specific areas, user history, and searching a rules repository).
As shown above Bucur et al. clearly teaches displaying information based on the first medical information, however, Bucur et al. does not expressly teach highlighting those results based on the expanded query and providing them to the user or more specifically as recited in the claims of and the processing circuitry is further configured to display at least part of the first medical data and to highlight instances of the at least one further term in the first medical data
However, DaBoll-Lavoie et al. which is in the art of determining concepts related to a specific search query of a user (see abstract) teaches highlighting those results based on the expanded query and providing them to the user or more specifically as recited in the claims of and the processing circuitry is further configured to display at least part of the first medical data and to highlight instances of the at least one further term in the first medical data (see paragraph 0114, 0088, and Figure 10, Examiner's note: providing a snippet of the document highlighting an expanded term utilized within the document (see paragraph 0114) and further paragraph 0088 and Figure 10 show an example of highlighting in search results).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bucur et al in view of DaBoll-Lavoie et al. with the aforementioned teachings from DaBoll-Lavoie et al. with the motivation of providing a way to show emphasis of why a search result was returned and deemed relevant to a user (see DaBoll-Lavoie et al. paragraphs 0114, 0088, and Figure 10), when returning a search result on a refined query based on a query originally input by a user is known (see Bucur et al. paragraphs 0063, 0065-0067, and 0077-0078).
As per claim 12, Burcur et al. does not expressly teach wherein, for each stored action, the notification of said stored action comprises a notification of which further term or terms are associated with said stored action.
However, DaBoll-Lavoie et al. which is in the art of determining concepts related to a specific search query of a user (see abstract) teaches wherein, for each stored action, the notification of said stored action comprises a notification of which further term or terms are associated with said stored action(see paragraph 0114, 0088, and Figure 10, Examiner's note: providing a snippet of the document highlighting an expanded term utilized within the document (see paragraph 0114) and further paragraph 0088 and Figure 10 show an example of highlighting in search results).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bucur et al in view of DaBoll-Lavoie et al. with the aforementioned teachings from DaBoll-Lavoie et al. with the motivation of providing a way to show emphasis of why a search result was returned and deemed relevant to a user (see DaBoll-Lavoie et al. paragraphs 0114, 0088, and Figure 10), when returning a search result on a refined query based on a query originally input by a user is known (see Bucur et al. paragraphs 0063, 0065-0067, and 0077-0078).
As per claim 13, Bucur et al. teaches
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive a second user input and to determine based on the user input at least one second input term; wherein the determining of the at least one further term comprises determining terms that are conceptually related to both the input term and the second input term. (see paragraphs 0026-0027 and 0051, Examiner's note: teaches this limitation in multiple ways specifically (1) teaches a query can be one or multiple terms for example cancer or breast cancer (see paragraph 0051) and (2) teaches refining queries from previous queries (see paragraphs 0026-0027)).
As per claim 14, Bucur et al. teaches
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate a user interface configured to accept user input (see paragraph 0050-0051, Examiner's note: user inputs a query for example breast cancer or cancer).
and produce a display having an interactive function indicating a rule or algorithm is associated with the identified piece of information, the function, when activated, producing display of patient information with information related to the rule (see paragraphs 0055-0056, 0061, and 0026-0027, Examiner's note: teaches multiple ways the term may be further refined according to rules(e.g. actions) like searching or not searching specific areas, user history, and searching a rules repository. It is noted that this limitation in the claim is very broad and therefore this could merely recite a system to provide results displayed to the user according to various rules and a user search query as taught in the cited above Bucur et al. paragraphs).
As shown above Bucur et al. clearly teaches providing search results based on a refined (e.g. expanded) query based on rules and an original query submitted by a user regarding medical information, however, Bucur et al. does not expressly teach highlighting those results based on the expanded query and providing them to the user on a screen or more specifically as recited in the claims of (1) information related to the rule being highlighted.
However, DaBoll-Lavoie et al. which is in the art of determining concepts related to a specific search query of a user (see abstract) teaches highlighting those results based on the expanded query and providing them to the user on a screen or more specifically as recited in the claims of (1) information related to the rule being highlighted (see paragraph 0114, 0088, and Figure 10, Examiner's note: providing a snippet of the document highlighting an expanded term utilized within the document (see paragraph 0114) and further paragraph 0088 and Figure 10 show an example of highlighting in search results)).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bucur et al in view of DaBoll-Lavoie et al. with the aforementioned teachings from DaBoll-Lavoie et al. with the motivation of providing a way to show emphasis of why a search result was returned and deemed relevant to a user (see DaBoll-Lavoie et al. paragraphs 0114, 0088, and Figure 10), when returning a search result on a refined query based on a query originally input by a user is known (see Bucur et al. paragraphs 0063, 0065-0067, 0077-0078).
As per claim 15, Bucur et al. which is in the art of generating a refined medical query (see abstract) teaches A method comprising:
receiving a user input from a user by processor, (see paragraph 0050-0051, Examiner's note: user inputs a query for example breast cancer or cancer).
wherein the user input instructs performing of a first action on first medical data for a subject; determining, by the processor, based on the user input at least one input term; determining, by the processor, at least one further term that is conceptually related to the at least one input term; obtaining, by the processor, a finding based in the at least one input term and/or the at least one further term; (see paragraphs 0009-0011, 0019-0021, 0023, 0031, 0026-0027 and 0052-0054, Examiner's note: these paragraphs teach finding a medical information item from a user search like for example non-mammary pain for a search of breast cancer, see paragraph 0052. Further teaches then using the link between the medical information and the rules repository to refine the medical query (see paragraphs 0010 and 0019-0021), which is interpreted as a finding for the input term or the further term. However this “finding” is a very broad term in the claims it could read on many different aspects of Bucur et al. like patient fields (see paragraph 0023), rankings (see paragraph 0031), generating multiple queries based on the query (see paragraph 0060), various user history (see paragraphs 0026-0027), etc.).
determining, by the processor, whether any stored action of a set of stored actions is associated with the at least one further term by identifying a clinical context corresponding to the received user input; and, if a stored action is associated with the at least one further term, performing, by the processor, said stored action associated with the at least one further term automatically on second medical data for the subject, wherein the performing of said stored action comprises selecting a rule corresponding to the clinical context from a plurality of rules for identifying among information to be displayed to the user a piece of information and providing the identified piece of information, wherein said stored action is an action that is expected a user will wish to perform based on the clinical context, patient information included in the first medical data, and the finding; (see paragraphs 0022-0024, 0026-0027, 0055-0056, and 0061, Examiner's note: teaches multiple ways the term may be further refined according to rules(e.g. actions) like searching or not searching specific areas, user’s own medical information, user’s previous searching history, and searching a rules repository).
Providing, by the processor, to the user a notification of said stored action; and displaying, by the processor, to the user the identified piece of information based on the selected rule (see paragraphs 0028-0031, 0033, 0041-0042, 0063-0066, and 0077-0078, Examiner’s note: teaches searching based on the refined query information from various sources and displaying it on a page. These results may be ranked and the search queries may be provided).
As shown above Bucur et al. clearly teaches providing search results based on a refined (e.g. expanded) query based on rules and an original query submitted by a user regarding medical information, however, Bucur et al. does not expressly teach highlighting those results based on the expanded query and providing them to the user on a screen or more specifically as recited in the claims of (1) and highlighting the identified piece of information, (2) information be to be displayed on a screen, (3) displaying the screen, and ( 4) information being highlighted.
However, DaBoll-Lavoie et al. which is in the art of determining concepts related to a specific search query of a user (see abstract) teaches highlighting those results based on the expanded query and providing them to the user on a screen or more specifically as recited in the claims of (1) and highlighting the identified piece of information, (2) information be to be displayed on a screen, (3) displaying the screen, and ( 4) information being highlighted (see paragraph 0091, 0093, 0114, 0088, and Figure 10, Examiner's note: providing a snippet of the document highlighting an expanded term utilized within the document (see paragraph 0114) and further paragraph 0088 and Figure 10 show an example of highlighting in search results. Further paragraphs 0091, 0093, and Figure 10 show presenting results on a screen).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bucur et al with the aforementioned teachings from DaBoll-Lavoie et al. with the motivation of providing a way to show emphasis of why a search result was returned and deemed relevant to a user on a known type of display (see DaBoll-Lavoie et al. paragraphs 0091, 0093, 0114, 0088, and Figure 10), when returning a search result on a refined query based on a query originally input by a user is known (see Bucur et al. paragraphs 0063, 0065-0067, 0077- 0078).
As per claim 16, Bucur et al. which is in the art of generating a refined medical query (see abstract) teaches A clinical information system, comprising processing circuitry configured to: (see abstract and paragraphs 0039 and 0084, Examiner's note: me