DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 02/24/2026.
Claims 1, 11-12 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 2-3, 9-10, 16 and 19 have been cancelled.
Claims 22-24 have been newly added.
Claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, 17-18 and 20-24 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/24/2026 has been entered.
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, 4-15, 17-18 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1, 4-14 and 21-23 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Claims 15, 17-18 and 20 fall under the non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a manufacture) category and claim 24 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, 17-18 and 20-24 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One:
An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Representative independent claim 15 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea. Note that independent claim 15 is the computer readable medium claim, claim 1 covers the matching method claim while claim 24 covers the system claim.
Specifically, independent claim 15 recites:
A computer product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a plurality of instructions for controlling a computer system to perform a method of providing an interactive medical guideline, the method comprising:
receiving, from a database, data of a medical guideline, wherein the medical guideline includes a decision tree including a plurality of clinical decisions and preconditions leading to at least some of the clinical decisions, the clinical decisions comprising treatments and/or diagnoses,
automatically generating a directed graph by extracting data from the medical guideline, the directed graph including a plurality of nodes representing the clinical decisions and the preconditions and edges connecting the plurality of nodes to represent dependency relationships among the clinical decisions and the preconditions;
receiving, from the database, patient medical records comprising an indication of a current medical condition of a patient;
providing, via a navigation interface, a graphical representation including selectable clinical decision options of at least part of the directed graph following a current treatment or diagnostic step selected for the patient, the graphical representation comprising a visual tree including graphical elements corresponding to the nodes of the directed graph with connectors corresponding to the edges of the directed graph, wherein the graphical elements representing the nodes are selectable via the navigation interface and include text of the clinical decisions and the preconditions represented by the nodes;
receiving, via the navigation interface, a selection of a node of the directed graph from the graphical representation;
based on the selection of the node, updating the graphical representation of the at least part of the directed graph to provide a navigation result of next selectable clinical decisions for the patient based on the medical guideline and the current medical condition of the patient, including identifying the navigation result based on a currently-selected node and one or more child nodes of the directed graph and highlighting the currently-selected node and an edge leading to the currently-selected node, to indicate a sequence of clinical decisions made for the patient; and
based on detected user interactions with the navigation interface, recording a user-selected sequence of selection of nodes to the patient medical record, including recording timestamps indicating dates of selection of the nodes in a linear data structure with the sequence of the selection of the nodes;
traversing the linear data structure to obtain the sequence of selection and the timestamps; and
exporting the sequence of selection of the nodes and the timestamps to a document of a history of clinical decisions of the patient.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: (a) “certain methods of organizing human activity” because providing a user interface to a user, providing an interactive medical guideline, providing a navigation result of the medical guideline and adjusting the data displayed based on the user input are a part of a medical workflow, providing a navigation result of next selectable clinical decisions for the patient based on the medical guideline and the current medical condition of the patient, recording a user-selected sequence of selection of nodes to the patient medical record all are ways of providing healthcare services to a patient and documenting a history of clinical decisions of the patient, which are managing human behavior/interactions between people. Furthermore, the foregoing underlined limitations constitute (b) “a mental process” because selecting clinical decision options following a current treatment or diagnostic step selected for the patient, highlighting the currently-selected node and an edge leading to the currently-selected node, to indicate a sequence of clinical decisions made for the patient, recording timestamps indicating dates, traversing linear data are observations/evaluations/analyses that can be performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper.
The foregoing underlined limitations also relate to claims 1 and 24 (similarly to claim 15).
Accordingly, the claim describes at least one abstract idea.
In relation to claims 8 and 14, these claims merely recite specific kinds of input data, such as: claim 8 - the graphical representation comprising only the currently-selected node of the directed graph and all the direct child nodes of the currently-selected node is provided based on the selection of the step view, and claim 14 - the information includes the customized clinical decision to be represented by the customized node, and a node of the directed graph which is to become a direct child node of the customized node.
In relation to claims 4-7, 11-13, 17-18 and 20-21, these claims merely recite determining steps such as: claims 4 and 17 - mapping the plurality of nodes of the decision tree to different regions of a display frame and providing the graphical representation of at least part of the directed graph including the nodes mapped to the selected region via the navigation interface, claim 5 the input comprises at least one 2 selected from: a zoom-in command, a zoom-out command, or a drag action, claim 6 - the graphical representation comprises only the currently-selected node of the directed graph and all direct child nodes of the currently-selected node, claim 7 - the currently-selected node and the direct child nodes is represented as a box including text of the clinical decisions and the preconditions represented by the currently-selected node and the direct child nodes in the graphical representation, claim 11 - determining a last selected node from the sequence, validating the selection of the new node based on determining whether the new node is a direct child node of the last selected node in the directed graph, performing an action based on a result of the validation, claim 12 - detecting that a version of the directed graph has been updated and providing a notification via the navigation interface to erase the recorded sequence, claims 13 & 20 - responsive to the request, generating a pop up window to collect information of the customized clinical decision, generating a customized node including the collected information and inserting, based on the collected information, the customized node into the directed graph to generate a customized directed graph and 21 - the medical guideline comprises a standardized medical guideline of standardized treatments and/or diagnosis, and wherein the method further comprises: detecting an update to the standardized medical guideline, in response to detecting the update, updating the directed graph to reflect the update to the standardized medical guideline.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The limitations of claims 1, 8 and 12, as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a computer product comprising a computer readable medium, a computer system, a navigation interface and a database to perform the limitations, are merely directed to navigating clinical decision tree using GUIs, which can be done mentally, under the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the computer product comprising the computer readable medium, the computer system, the navigation interface and the database are recited at high levels of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving data/inputs, determining and providing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components.
Regarding the additional limitations “a directed graph representing a medical guideline”, “a decision tree”, “a plurality of nodes representing the clinical decisions”, and “a graphical representation” the Examiner submits that this additional limitation amount to merely using a computer to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Regarding the additional limitation “receiving, ….. data of a directed graph representing a medical guideline” and “receiving, …. a selection of a node of the directed graph from the graphical representation”, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant pre-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvements in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or us the above-noted implement/use to above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see 2019 PEG and MPEP §2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, in representative independent claim 15, regarding the additional limitations of the computer readable medium, computer system, navigation interface and database, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, representative independent claim 1, 15 and analogous independent claim 24 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims no not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1, 4-8, 11-15, 17-18 and 20-24 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 6-8, 11, 15, 18 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 2012/0290310 A1) in view of Baldwin (US 10,593,423 B2) further in view of Takeuchi (US 2019/0221311 A1) and Vdovjak (US 2014/0129246 A1).
Claim 1:
Watson discloses a computer-implemented method of providing an interactive medical guideline (See Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and P0031, menu-driven prompts for input.), comprising:
receiving, from a database (See Fig. 2 clinical acquisition server accessing databases 221, 222 and 223 mentioned in P0025.), data of a medical guideline, wherein the medical guideline includes a decision tree including a plurality of clinical decisions and preconditions leading to at least some of the clinical decisions, the clinical decisions comprising treatments and/or diagnoses (See Fig. 7A-D, P0070-P0076 where thinking-ahead functionality (items 29, 30) include scheduled and required treatment.), and the directed graph including a plurality of nodes representing the clinical decisions and the preconditions and (See P0024, where the ongoing diagnoses serve as clinical decisions and the preconditions. See Fig. 1A - Fig. 1D dynamic decision forests with tree nodes representing clinical queries mentioned in P0017-P0018. See [P0015] the physician is presented with a series of interfaces which guide a highly informative data acquisition tailored to the particular patient's history and condition.);
receiving, from the database, patient medical records comprising an indication of a current medical condition of a patient (See P0014 populating and accessing patient records, see recording notes in diagnosis in P0057. Also, see Fig. 2 and [P0025-P0026] Such patient data 222 could include data acquired by interaction with other systems (for example, importing a medical history from another system), data stored from the user physician's previous interactions with the patient, and the already-completed steps of an ongoing medical diagnosis…….. determining the next clinical interaction step, such as the next node for the path being followed in the present clinical examination.);
providing, via a navigation interface (See Fig. 3 – Fig. 6, P0031, menu-driven prompts serve as the navigation interface implemented on client module 201 of computer hardware shown in Fig. 2 mentioned in P0021.), a graphical representation including selectable clinical decision options of at least part of the directed graph following a current treatment or diagnostic step selected for the patient, the graphical representation including graphical elements corresponding to the nodes of the directed graph (See Fig. 2 and [P0025-P0026] The clinical interaction service 214 may receive data from the decision node data 221 which the clinical interaction service 214 may then use in determining the next clinical interaction step, such as the next node for the path being followed in the present clinical examination.);
receiving, via the navigation interface, a selection of a node of the directed graph from the graphical representation (See Fig. 1A - Fig. 1D dynamic decision forests with tree nodes corresponding client module 201 of computer hardware shown in Fig. 2 mentioned in P0021.);
based on the selection of the node, updating the graphical representation of the at least part of the directed graph to provide a navigation result (See Fig. 6, P0036 exemplary resulting presentation incorporating both received data, final editing and added free text.) of next selectable clinical decisions for the patient based on the medical guideline and the current medical condition of the patient, including identifying the navigation result based on a currently-selected node and one or more child nodes of the directed graph (See Fig. 1A - Fig. 1D dynamic decision forests with tree nodes representing clinical queries mentioned in P0017-P0018. See [P0015] the physician is presented with a series of interfaces which guide a highly informative data acquisition tailored to the particular patient's history and condition. See Fig. 3 – Fig. 6, P0031, menu-driven prompts serve as the navigation interface implemented on client module 201 of computer hardware shown in Fig. 2 mentioned in P0021.); and
based on detected user interactions with the navigation interface (See Fig. 6, P0036 exemplary resulting presentation incorporating both received data, final editing and added free text.),
Although Watson discloses a plurality of nodes representing the clinical decisions as mentioned above, Watson does not teach connectors corresponding to the edges of the directed graph. Baldwin teaches when the nodes of the directed graph with connectors corresponding to the edges of the directed graph (See [column 15, lines 14-37] each phrase is represented as a node with a single edge connecting the node to the preceding medically relevant phrases and following medically relevant phrases in unstructured text.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of classifying medically relevant phrases before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Watson to include connectors corresponding to the edges of the directed graph as taught by Baldwin to improve medical practitioners' diagnostic hypotheses mentioned in Baldwin’s column 3, lines 9-24.
Although Watson and Baldwin teach a computer-implemented method and system of providing an interactive medical guideline mentioned above, Watson and Baldwin do not explicitly teach an interactive medical guideline automatically generating a directed graph of extracted data, along with a visual tree and graphical elements representing nodes selected via a navigation interface including text of the clinical decisions, the preconditions represented by the nodes and highlighting the currently-selected node and an edge leading to the currently-selected node, to indicate a sequence of clinical decisions. Takeuchi teaches:
automatically generating a directed graph by extracting data from the medical guideline (See Fig. 1, selected neural network include patient data extracted from a diagnosis-and-treatment database and medical records exemplary in [P0046-P0047] when the “item” is the “administered medication” with the dose being “0.879 (mg)”, the “value” is “0.879”, and the unit is “(mg)”. When a feature vector is a one-dimensional column vector regarding the “value”, the “item” and the “unit” are assumed to be determined based on a position of the “value”.).
comprising a visual tree (See screens as Fig. 10-14 include Prediction Target Model (PTM) as visual trees mentioned in P0045-P0046, P0142-P0146, P0153-P0154.),
wherein the graphical elements representing the nodes are selectable via the navigation interface and include text of the clinical decisions and the preconditions represented by the nodes (See nodal graphs in screens as Fig. 10-14 where exemplary treatment P2b serves as a clinical decision includes Evidence Level (E) is less than equal to x with Very high importance, predictive analytics A as a precondition and P2C Clinical pathway C is less than z mentioned in P0142-P0143, P0149-P0150.);
and highlighting the currently-selected node and an edge leading to the currently-selected node, to indicate a sequence of clinical decisions made for the patient (See Fig. 11, [P0142-P0144] the edit module 705 highlights the symptom P1 and the treatment P2b on the recommended pathway, and couples the recommended pathway to the explanation information. Also, see P0149, P0157.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of clinical pathway analysis before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Watson and Baldwin to include an interactive medical guideline automatically generating a directed graph of extracted data, along with a visual tree and graphical elements representing nodes selected via a navigation interface including text of the clinical decisions, the preconditions represented by the nodes and highlighting the currently-selected node and an edge leading to the currently-selected node, to indicate a sequence of clinical decisions as taught by Takeuchi to include clinical guidelines high in evidence when conducting diagnosis and treatment as mentioned in Takeuchi’s P0002-P0003.
Although Watson, Baldwin and Takeuchi teach the method and system for providing an interactive medical guideline mentioned above, Watson, Baldwin and Takeuchi do not explicitly teach nodal sequence of clinical decisions to include traversing and exporting timestamps. Vdovjak further teaches:
including recording timestamps indicating dates of selection of the nodes in a linear data structure with the sequence of the selection of the nodes (See timestamped nodal data entered in Abstract, P0068, P0072-P0073 and P0093-P0094.);
traversing the linear data structure to obtain the sequence of selection and the timestamps (See P0014, P0073-P0074 where past recommendations stored serve as traversing the timestamped data.); and
exporting the sequence of selection of the nodes and the timestamps to a document of a history of clinical decisions of the patient (See [P0072-P0073] When a recommendation is provided by the expert, in answer to the question/request, the document holding the recommendation may be added to the repository of recommendations together with a time stamp, authorship information, and a link to the question that initiated the recommendation and the corresponding patient data.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of clinical decision support before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Watson, Baldwin and Takeuchi to include nodal sequence of clinical decisions to include traversing and exporting timestamps as taught by Vdovjak for determining a relevant node of the plurality of nodes, based on a condition of a specific patient and the set of clinical preconditions of the relevant node as mentioned in Vdovjak’s P0008.
Regarding claim 6, Watson discloses wherein the graphical representation comprises only a currently-selected node of the directed graph and all direct child nodes of the currently-selected node (See Fig1B, where node D2- D7 represent portion of the dynamic decision forests where all child nodes are selected.).
Regarding claim 7, Watson discloses wherein each of the currently-selected node 2 and the direct child nodes is represented as a box including text of the clinical decisions and the preconditions represented by the currently-selected node and the direct child nodes in the graphical representation (See exemplary checkboxes 324-327 (P0032) and option to “add free text“ , 603 shown in Fig. 6 in the clinical decision process.).
Regarding claim 8, Watson discloses receiving a selection to select between a tree view or a step view, wherein the graphical representation comprising only the currently-selected node of the directed graph and all the direct child nodes of the currently-selected node is provided based on the selection of the step view (See Fig1B, where node D2- D7 represent portion of the dynamic decision forests where all child nodes are selected. See [P0015] the physician is presented with a series of interfaces which guide a highly informative data acquisition tailored to the particular patient's history and condition. See Fig. 3 – Fig. 6, P0031, menu-driven prompts serve as selection based views implemented on client module 201 of computer hardware shown in Fig. 2 mentioned in P0021).
Claim 15:
Watson discloses a computer product comprising a computer readable medium storing a plurality of instructions for controlling a computer system to perform a method of providing an interactive medical guideline (See computer readable media in P0013. See Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and P0031, menu-driven prompts for input.), the method comprising:
receiving, from a database (See Fig. 2 clinical acquisition server accessing databases 221, 222 and 223 mentioned in P0025.), data of a medical guideline, wherein the medical guideline includes a decision tree including a plurality of clinical decisions and preconditions leading to at least some of the clinical decisions, the clinical decisions comprising treatments and/or diagnoses (See Fig. 7A-D, P0070-P0076 where thinking-ahead functionality (items 29, 30) include scheduled and required treatment.), and the directed graph including a plurality of nodes representing the clinical decisions and the preconditions and (See P0024, where the ongoing diagnoses serve as clinical decisions and the preconditions. See Fig. 1A - Fig. 1D dynamic decision forests with tree nodes representing clinical queries mentioned in P0017-P0018. See [P0015] the physician is presented with a series of interfaces which guide a highly informative data acquisition tailored to the particular patient's history and condition.);
receiving, from the database, patient medical records comprising an indication of a current medical condition of a patient (See P0014 populating and accessing patient records, see recording notes in diagnosis in P0057. Also, see Fig. 2 and [P0025-P0026] Such patient data 222 could include data acquired by interaction with other systems (for example, importing a medical history from another system), data stored from the user physician's previous interactions with the patient, and the already-completed steps of an ongoing medical diagnosis…….. determining the next clinical interaction step, such as the next node for the path being followed in the present clinical examination.);
providing, via a navigation interface (See Fig. 3 – Fig. 6, P0031, menu-driven prompts serve as the navigation interface implemented on client module 201 of computer hardware shown in Fig. 2 mentioned in P0021.), a graphical representation including selectable clinical decision options of at least part of the directed graph following a current treatment or diagnostic step selected for the patient, the graphical representation including graphical elements corresponding to the nodes of the directed graph (See Fig. 2 and [P0025-P0026] The clinical interaction service 214 may receive data from the decision node data 221 which the clinical interaction service 214 may then use in determining the next clinical interaction step, such as the next node for the path being followed in the present clinical examination.);
receiving, via the navigation interface, a selection of a node of the directed graph from the graphical representation (See Fig. 1A - Fig. 1D dynamic decision forests with tree nodes corresponding client module 201 of computer hardware shown in Fig. 2 mentioned in P0021.);
based on the selection of the node, updating the graphical representation of the at least part of the directed graph to provide a navigation result (See Fig. 6, P0036 exemplary resulting presentation incorporating both received data, final editing and added free text.) of next selectable clinical decisions for the patient based on the medical guideline and the current medical condition of the patient, including identifying the navigation result based on a currently-selected node and one or more child nodes of the directed graph (See Fig. 1A - Fig. 1D dynamic decision forests with tree nodes representing clinical queries mentioned in P0017-P0018. See [P0015] the physician is presented with a series of interfaces which guide a highly informative data acquisition tailored to the particular patient's history and condition. See Fig. 3 – Fig. 6, P0031, menu-driven prompts serve as the navigation interface implemented on client module 201 of computer hardware shown in Fig. 2 mentioned in P0021.); and
based on detected user interactions with the navigation interface (See Fig. 6, P0036 exemplary resulting presentation incorporating both received data, final editing and added free text.),
Although Watson discloses a plurality of nodes representing the clinical decisions as mentioned above, Watson does not teach connectors corresponding to the edges of the directed graph. Baldwin teaches when the nodes of the directed graph with connectors corresponding to the edges of the directed graph (See [column 15, lines 14-37] each phrase is represented as a node with a single edge connecting the node to the preceding medically relevant phrases and following medically relevant phrases in unstructured text.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of classifying medically relevant phrases before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Watson to include connectors corresponding to the edges of the directed graph as taught by Baldwin to improve medical practitioners' diagnostic hypotheses mentioned in Baldwin’s column 3, lines 9-24.
Although Watson and Baldwin teach a computer-implemented method and system of providing an interactive medical guideline mentioned above, Watson and Baldwin do not explicitly teach an interactive medical guideline automatically generating a directed graph of extracted data, along with a visual tree and graphical elements representing nodes selected via a navigation interface including text of the clinical decisions, the preconditions represented by the nodes and highlighting the currently-selected node and an edge leading to the currently-selected node, to indicate a sequence of clinical decisions. Takeuchi teaches:
automatically generating a directed graph by extracting data from the medical guideline (See Fig. 1, selected neural network include patient data extracted from a diagnosis-and-treatment database and medical records exemplary in [P0046-P0047] when the “item” is the “administered medication” with the dose being “0.879 (mg)”, the “value” is “0.879”, and the unit is “(mg)”. When a feature vector is a one-dimensional column vector regarding the “value”, the “item” and the “unit” are assumed to be determined based on a position of the “value”.).
comprising a visual tree (See screens as Fig. 10-14 include Prediction Target Model (PTM) as visual trees mentioned in P0045-P0046, P0142-P0146, P0153-P0154.),
wherein the graphical elements representing the nodes are selectable via the navigation interface and include text of the clinical decisions and the preconditions represented by the nodes (See nodal graphs in screens as Fig. 10-14 where exemplary treatment P2b serves as a clinical decision includes Evidence Level (E) is less than equal to x with Very high importance, predictive analytics A as a precondition and P2C Clinical pathway C is less than z mentioned in P0142-P0143, P0149-P0150.);
and highlighting the currently-selected node and an edge leading to the currently-selected node, to indicate a sequence of clinical decisions made for the patient (See Fig. 11, [P0142-P0144] the edit module 705 highlights the symptom P1 and the treatment P2b on the recommended pathway, and couples the recommended pathway to the explanation information. Also, see P0149, P0157.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of clinical pathway analysis before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Watson and Baldwin to include an interactive medical guideline automatically generating a directed graph of extracted data, along with a visual tree and graphical elements representing nodes selected via a navigation interface including text of the clinical decisions, the preconditions represented by the nodes and highlighting the currently-selected node and an edge leading to the currently-selected node, to indicate a sequence of clinical decisions as taught by Takeuchi to include clinical guidelines high in evidence when conducting diagnosis and treatment as mentioned in Takeuchi’s P0002-P0003.
Although Watson, Baldwin and Takeuchi teach the method and system for providing an interactive medical guideline mentioned above, Watson, Baldwin and Takeuchi do not explicitly teach nodal sequence of clinical decisions to include traversing and exporting timestamps. Vdovjak further teaches:
including recording timestamps indicating dates of selection of the nodes in a linear data structure with the sequence of the selection of the nodes (See timestamped nodal data entered in Abstract, P0068, P0072-P0073 and P0093-P0094.);
traversing the linear data structure to obtain the sequence of selection and the timestamps (See P0014, P0073-P0074 where past recommendations stored serve as traversing the timestamped data.); and
exporting the sequence of selection of the nodes and the timestamps to a document of a history of clinical decisions of the patient (See [P0072-P0073] When a recommendation is provided by the expert, in answer to the question/request, the document holding the recommendation may be added to the repository of recommendations together with a time stamp, authorship information, and a link to the question that initiated the recommendation and the corresponding patient data.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of clinical decision support before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Watson, Baldwin and Takeuchi to include nodal sequence of clinical decisions to include traversing and exporting timestamps as taught by Vdovjak for determining a relevant node of the plurality of nodes, based on a condition of a specific patient and the set of clinical preconditions of the relevant node as mentioned in Vdovjak’s P0008.
Regarding claim 18, Watson discloses the computer product of claim 15, wherein the graphical representation comprises only the currently-selected node of the directed graph and all direct child nodes of the currently-selected node (Taught in Fig. 1A and P0017 where a predefined relationship between nodes is represented by a dotted line terminating in an arrow serve as only the currently-selected node of the directed graph.).
Claim 24:
Watson discloses a system (See Fig. 3, Fig. 4 and P0031, menu-driven prompts for input.), comprising: one ore more processors; and one or more a non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions by the one or more processors (See exemplary processors 202, 203 & 204 shown in Fig. 2 and computer readable media in P0013, P0098.) for:
receiving, from a database (See Fig. 2 clinical acquisition server accessing databases 221, 222 and 223 mentioned in P0025.), data of a medical guideline, wherein the medical guideline includes a decision tree including a plurality of clinical decisions and preconditions leading to at least some of the clinical decisions, the clinical decisions comprising treatments and/or diagnoses (See Fig. 7A-D, P0070-P0076 where thinking-ahead functionality (items 29, 30) include scheduled and required treatment.), and the directed graph including a plurality of nodes representing the clinical decisions and the preconditions and (See P0024, where the ongoing diagnoses serve as clinical decisions and the preconditions. See Fig. 1A - Fig. 1D dynamic decision forests with tree nodes representing clinical queries mentioned in P0017-P0018. See [P0015] the physician is presented with a series of interfaces which guide a highly informative data acquisition tailored to the particular patient's history and condition.);
receiving, from the database, patient medical records comprising an indication of a current medical condition of a patient (See P0014 populating and accessing patient records, see recording notes in diagnosis in P0057. Also, see Fig. 2 and [P0025-P0026] Such patient data 222 could include data acquired by interaction with other systems (for example, importing a medical history from another system), data stored from the user physician's previous interactions with the patient, and the already-completed steps of an ongoing medical diagnosis…….. determining the next clinical interaction step, such as the next node for the path being followed in the present clinical examination.);
providing, via a navigation interface (See Fig. 3 – Fig. 6, P0031, menu-driven prompts serve as the navigation interface implemented on client module 201 of computer hardware shown in Fig. 2 mentioned in P0021.), a graphical representation including selectable clinical decision options of at least part of the directed graph following a current treatment or diagnostic step selected for the patient, the graphical representation including graphical elements corresponding to the nodes of the directed graph (See Fig. 2 and [P0025-P0026] The clinical interaction service 214 may receive data from the decision node data 221 which the clinical interaction service 214 may then use in determining the next clinical interaction step, such as the next node for the path being followed in the present clinical examination.);
receiving, via the navigation interface, a selection of a node of the directed graph from the graphical representation (See Fig. 1A - Fig. 1D dynamic decision forests with tree nodes corresponding client module 201 of computer hardware shown in Fig. 2 mentioned in P0021.);
based on the selection of the node, updating the graphical representation of the at least part of the directed graph to provide a navigation result (See Fig. 6, P0036 exemplary resulting presentation incorporating both received data, final editing and added free text.) of next selectable clinical decisions for the patient based on the medical guideline and the current medical condition of the patient, including identifying the navigation result based on a currently-selected node and one or more child nodes of the directed graph (See Fig. 1A - Fig. 1D dynamic decision forests with tree nodes representing clinical queries mentioned in P0017-P0018. See [P0015] the physician is presented with a series of interfaces which guide a highly informative data acquisition tailored to the particular patient's history and condition. See Fig. 3 – Fig. 6, P0031, menu-driven prompts serve as the navigation interface implemented on client module 201 of computer hardware shown in Fig. 2 mentioned in P0021.); and
based on detected user interactions with the navigation interface (See Fig. 6, P0036 exemplary resulting presentation incorporating both received data, final editing and added free text.),
Although Watson discloses a plurality of nodes representing the clinical decisions as mentioned above, Watson does not teach connectors corresponding to the edges of the directed graph. Baldwin teaches when the nodes of the directed graph with connectors corresponding to the edges of the directed graph (See [column 15, lines 14-37] each phrase is represented as a node with a single edge connecting the node to the preceding medically relevant phrases and following medically relevant phrases in unstructured text.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of classifying medically relevant phrases before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Watson to include connectors corresponding to the edges of the directed graph as taught by Baldwin to improve medical practitioners' diagnostic hypotheses mentioned in Baldwin’s column 3, lines 9-24.
Although Watson and Baldwin teach a computer-implemented method and system of providing an interactive medical guideline mentioned above, Watson and Baldwin do not explicitly teach an interactive medical guideline automatically generating a directed graph of extracted data, along with a visual tree and graphical elements representing nodes selected via a navigation interface including text of the clinical decisions, the preconditions represented by the nodes and highlighting the currently-selected node and an edge leading to the currently-selected node, to indicate a sequence of clinical decisions. Takeuchi teaches:
automatically generating a directed graph by extracting data from the medical guideline (See Fig. 1, selected neural network include patient data extracted from a diagnosis-and-treatment database and medical records exemplary in [P0046-P0047] when the “item” is the “administered medication” with the dose being “0.879 (mg)”, the “value” is “0.879”, and the unit is “(mg)”. When a feature vector is a one-dimensional column vector regarding the “value”, the “item” and the “unit” are assumed to be determined based on a position of the “value”.).
comprising a visual tree (See screens as Fig. 10-14 include Prediction Target Model (PTM) as visual trees mentioned in P0045-P0046, P0142-P0146, P0153-P0154.),
wherein the graphical elements representing the nodes are selectable via the navigation interface and include text of the clinical decisions and the preconditions represented by the nodes (See nodal graphs in screens as Fig. 10-14 where exemplary treatment P2b serves as a clinical decision includes Evidence Level (E) is less than equal to x with Very high importance, predictive analytics A as a precondition and P2C Clinical pathway C is less than z mentioned in P0142-P0143, P0149-P0150.);
and highlighting the currently-selected node and an edge leading to the currently-selected node, to indicate a sequence of clinical decisions made for the patient (See Fig. 11, [P0142-P0144] the edit module 705 highlights the symptom P1 and the treatment P2b on the recommended pathway, and couples the recommended pathway to the explanation information. Also, see P0149, P0157.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of clinical pathway analysis before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Watson and Baldwin to include an interactive medical guideline automatically generating a directed graph of extracted data, along with a visual tree and graphical elements representing nodes selected via a navigation interface including text of the clinical decisions, the preconditions represented by the nodes and highlighting the currently-selected node and an edge leading to the currently-selected node, to indicate a sequence of clinical decisions as taught by Takeuchi to include clinical guidelines high in evidence when conducting diagnosis and treatment as mentioned in Takeuchi’s P0002-P0003.
Although Watson, Baldwin and Takeuchi teach the method and system for providing an interactive medical guideline mentioned above, Watson, Baldwin and Takeuchi do not explicitly teach nodal sequence of clinical decisions to include traversing and exporting timestamps. Vdovjak further teaches:
including recording timestamps indicating dates of selection of the nodes in a linear data structure with the sequence of the selection of the nodes (See timestamped nodal data entered in Abstract, P0068, P0072-P0073 and P0093-P0094.);
traversing the linear data structure to obtain the sequence of selection and the timestamps (See P0014, P0073-P0074 where past recommendations stored serve as traversing the timestamped data.); and
exporting the sequence of selection of the nodes and the timestamps to a document of a history of clinical decisions of the patient (See [P0072-P0073] When a recommendation is provided by the expert, in answer to the question/request, the document holding the recommendation may be added to the repository of recommendations together with a time stamp, authorship information, and a link to the question that initiated the recommendation and the corresponding patient data.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of clinical decision support before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Watson, Baldwin and Takeuchi to include nodal sequence of clinical decisions to include traversing and exporting timestamps as taught by Vdovjak for determining a relevant node of the plurality of nodes, based on a condition of a specific patient and the set of clinical preconditions of the relevant node as mentioned in Vdovjak’s P0008.
Regarding claim 11, Watson discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving a selection of a new node (Besides the beginning point query node as the new node (Fig. 1D 101, P0017), see exemplary symptom options as nodal input shown in Fig. 3, 301, P0031-P0032.);
determining a last selected node from the sequence (See example nodal sequence in Fig. 3, Fig.4 and [P0032-P0034] The arrow between the first and second menu 311 indicate this causal relationship. Relating this to FIG. 1b and the system's behavior of traveling between nodes, the arrow 311 corresponds to a transition from one node to a second (e.g., transition 112), whether those node had a predefined relationship (e.g., transition 112), or the transition was a jump (e.g., jump 114).);
validating the selection of the new node based on determining whether the new node is a direct child node of the last selected node in the directed graph (See Fig. 5 where nodal inputs are verified before selecting the Continue button 503 mentioned in P0035.); and
performing an action based on a result of the validation (Besides verifying inputs shown in Fig. 5, see iterative verification of inputting free text mentioned in P0064-P0065.).
Regarding claim 22, although Watson, Baldwin, Takeuchi and Vdovjak teach the method of claim 1 mentioned above, Vdovjak teaches further comprising: based on the recorded sequence, detecting that a node corresponding to a step required by the medical guideline was skipped; and upon detecting the skipping of the node, automatically performing a pre-determined action (See P0064, P0084-P0086 where missing information serve as detecting the skipping that provides an efficient dissemination of augmented clinical guidelines).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of clinical decision support before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Watson, Baldwin and Takeuchi to include detecting the skipping of a node, automatically performing a pre-determined action as taught by Vdovjak for determining a relevant node of the plurality of nodes, based on a condition of a specific patient and the set of clinical preconditions of the relevant node as mentioned in Vdovjak’s P0008.
Regarding claim 23, although Watson, Baldwin, Takeuchi and Vdovjak teach the method of claim 22 mentioned above, Vdovjak teaches wherein the pre-determined action comprises displaying a warning and/or refraining from accepting the node selection (See P0024 alerting when an action is expected.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of clinical decision support before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Watson, Baldwin and Takeuchi to include a warning and/or refraining from accepting an action as taught by Vdovjak for determining a relevant node of the plurality of nodes, based on a condition of a specific patient and the set of clinical preconditions of the relevant node as mentioned in Vdovjak’s P0008.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 2012/0290310 A1) in view of Baldwin (US 10,593,423 B2) further in view of Takeuchi (US 2019/0221311 A1), Vdovjak (US 2014/0129246 A1) and Barkol (US 2020/0327996 A1).
Regarding claim 12, although Watson, Baldwin, Takeuchi and Vdovjak teach the method of claim 1 mentioned above, Watson, Baldwin, Takeuchi and Vdovjak do not explicitly teach detecting that a version of the directed graph has been updated and providing a notification via the navigation interface to erase the recorded sequence. Barkol teaches:
further comprising: detecting that a version of the directed graph has been updated; and
based on the detection, providing a notification via the navigation interface to erase the recorded sequence (See [P0133] As time progresses, outdated events, notifications, and/or messages may be automatically removed from the timeline…... the events, notifications, and/or messages generated and/or obtained over the prior predetermined amount of time may be preferentially displayed.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare collaborating before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Watson, Baldwin, Takeuchi and Vdovjak to include detecting that a version of the directed graph has been updated and providing a notification via the navigation interface to erase the recorded sequence as taught by Barkol to avoid wasting care providers’ time when resources are already stretched as mentioned in Barkol’s P0002.
Claims 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 2012/0290310 A1) in view of Baldwin (US 10,593,423 B2) further in view of Takeuchi (US 2019/0221311 A1), Vdovjak (US 2014/0129246 A1) and Freeman (US 10,976,908 B2).
Regarding claim 13, although Watson, Baldwin, Takeuchi and Vdovjak teach the method of claim 1 mentioned above, Watson, Baldwin, Takeuchi and Vdovjak do not explicitly teach receiving requested nodal representation of a customized clinical decision not defined in the medical guideline into the directed graph, responding to the request, generating a pop up window to collect information of the customized clinical decision and inserting the customized node into the directed graph to generate a customized directed graph based on the collected information. Freeman teaches further comprising:
receiving, via the navigation interface, a request to insert a node representing a customized clinical decision not defined in the medical guideline into the directed graph (See decision support system in column 12, line 56 to column 13, line 8, where request for caregiver to enter a Dyspnea Engagement Score, or suggest one for confirmation. Also, see the decision support module may be navigated through the various decision points, nodes show in Fig. 28- Fig. 30 mentioned in column 18, line 17 to column 19, line 40.).
responsive to the request, generating a pop up window to collect information of the customized clinical decision (See column 13, lines 1-8 where the decision support system changes its display input prompting the user serve as a pop up window to collect information. Also, see Fig. 34, column 23, line 62 to column 24, line 4 pop-up window along a timeline where a user attaches or places physiological events.);
generating a customized node including the collected information; and inserting, based on the collected information, the customized node into the directed graph to generate a customized directed graph (See decision support tree of nodes shown as Fig. 28 mentioned in column 18, line 17-53.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of clinical decision support before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Watson, Baldwin, Takeuchi and Vdovjak to include receiving requested nodal representation of a customized clinical decision not defined in the medical guideline into the directed graph, responding to the request, generating a pop up window to collect information of the customized clinical decision and inserting the customized node into the directed graph to generate a customized directed graph based on the collected information as taught by Freeman to improve the accuracy, effectiveness, and reliability of both field and hospital patient treatment. as mentioned in Freeman’s column 1, lines 27-34.
Regarding claim 14, Watson discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the information includes the customized clinical decision to be represented by the customized node, and a node of the directed graph which is to become a direct child node of the customized node (See exemplary child nodes A1, C1, D1 and E1 shown in Fig. 1A, mentioned in P0017-P0021.).
Regarding claim 20, although Watson, Baldwin, Takeuchi and Vdovjak teach the computer product of claim 15 mentioned above, Watson, Baldwin, Takeuchi and Vdovjak do not explicitly teach receiving requested nodal representation of a customized clinical decision not defined in the medical guideline into the directed graph, responding to the request, generating a pop up window to collect information of the customized clinical decision and inserting the customized node into the directed graph to generate a customized directed graph based on the collected information. Freeman teaches wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, via the navigation interface, a request to insert a node representing a customized clinical decision not defined in the medical guideline into the directed graph (See decision support system in column 12, line 56 to column 13, line 8, where request for caregiver to enter a Dyspnea Engagement Score, or suggest one for confirmation. Also, see the decision support module may be navigated through the various decision points, nodes show in Fig. 28- Fig. 30 mentioned in column 18, line 17 to column 19, line 40.).
responsive to the request, generating a pop up window to collect information of the customized clinical decision (See column 13, lines 1-8 where the decision support system changes its display input prompting the user serve as a pop up window to collect information. Also, see Fig. 34, column 23, line 62 to column 24, line 4 pop-up window along a timeline where a user attaches or places physiological events.);
generating a customized node including the collected information; and inserting, based on the collected information, the customized node into the directed graph to generate a customized directed graph (See decision support tree of nodes shown as Fig. 28 mentioned in column 18, line 17-53.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of clinical decision support before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Watson, Baldwin, Takeuchi and Vdovjak to include receiving requested nodal representation of a customized clinical decision not defined in the medical guideline into the directed graph, responding to the request, generating a pop up window to collect information of the customized clinical decision and inserting the customized node into the directed graph to generate a customized directed graph based on the collected information as taught by Freeman to improve the accuracy, effectiveness, and reliability of both field and hospital patient treatment. as mentioned in Freeman’s column 1, lines 27-34.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 2012/0290310 A1) in view of Baldwin (US 10,593,423 B2) further in view of Takeuchi (US 2019/0221311 A1), Vdovjak (US 2014/0129246 A1) and Stein (US 2004/0189718 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, although Watson discloses the graphical elements representing the nodes are selectable via the navigation interface and include text of the clinical decisions and the preconditions represented by the nodes as mentioned above, Watson, Baldwin, Takeuchi and Vdovjak do not explicitly teach representing nodes by providing the graphical representation of at least part of the directed graph including the nodes mapped to the selected region via the navigation interface. Stein teaches:
mapping the plurality of nodes of the decision tree to different regions of a display frame (See exemplary mapping, display frame Fig. 6A, Fig. 6B.); receiving, via the navigation interface, an input to select a region of the display frame to be displayed in the navigation interface (See P0103-P0104 where regions of the node icon have same information that can be recorded into an Action list 602 by the healthcare practitioner.); and
based on the selected region and the mapping, providing the graphical representation of at least part of the directed graph including the nodes mapped to the selected region via the navigation interface (See interlink nodes within relevant data map in P0021, P0024.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of medicine GUI’s before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Watson, Baldwin, Takeuchi and Vdovjak to include representing nodes by providing the graphical representation of at least part of the directed graph including the nodes mapped to the selected region via the navigation interface as taught by Stein to assists in conveying the context of the feedback more accurately mentioned in Stein’s P0028.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 2012/0290310 A1) in view of Baldwin (US 10,593,423 B2) further in view of Takeuchi (US 2019/0221311 A1), Vdovjak (US 2014/0129246 A1), Stein (US 2004/0189718 A1) and Gruebele (US 2020/0371740 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Watson does not explicitly teach zoom and drag features. Gruebele teaches wherein the input comprises at least one selected from: a zoom-in command, a zoom-out command, or a drag action (See [P0112] the application will zoom into the timeline such that the phone call audio spans most of the screen.) [0111] 4) expanded events may be dragged in time domain, allowing the user to adjust event time. Also, see P0014 time-stamped recorded events.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of handheld and wearable computing before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Watson, Baldwin, Takeuchi, Vdovjak and Stein to zoom and drag features as taught by Gruebele to allow for the concurrent organized visualization of a large amount of bookmark, photo, meeting, phone call et al events mentioned in Gruebele’s P0113.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson (US 2012/0290310 A1) in view of Baldwin (US 10,593,423 B2) further in view of Takeuchi (US 2019/0221311 A1) and Katwala (US 2018/004676 A1).
Regarding claim 21, although Watson, Baldwin and Takeuchi teach the method of claim 1 mentioned above, Watson, Baldwin, Takeuchi and Vdovjak do not explicitly teach a standardized medical guideline of standardized treatments and/or diagnosis comprising detecting an update to the standardized medical guideline, in response to detecting the update, updating the directed graph to reflect the update to the standardized medical guideline. Katwala teaches:
wherein the medical guideline comprises a standardized medical guideline of standardized treatments and/or diagnosis (See P0046-P0047, Fig. 4.), and wherein the method further comprises:
detecting an update to the standardized medical guideline (See clinical guidelines in P0046-P0047.); and
in response to detecting the update, updating the directed graph to reflect the update to the standardized medical guideline (See [P0046-P0047] Quantitative clinical rule 404-138 indicates that if the tumor is less than 1 cm in size, the immediately subsequent clinical rules in input clinical guideline 402a apply. In certain embodiments, nodes 408 may have attributes such as a node rule (e.g., “ER negative and PR negative” for node 408-136) and a node state indicating what the node rule is applied to (e.g., “Hormone receptor status” for node 408-136).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of patient record management before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Watson, Baldwin, Takeuchi and Vdovjak to include a standardized medical guideline of standardized treatments and/or diagnosis comprising detecting an update to the standardized medical guideline, in response to detecting the update, updating the directed graph to reflect the update to the standardized medical guideline as taught by Katwala to improve the accuracy and efficiency of identifying patient medical acuity, treatments and health management and associated record-keeping mentioned in Katwala’s P0033.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the claims do not recite interactions between people, but instead interactions with a computer. see pg. 10-11 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
With claims 1, 15 and 24 broadly claimed, a clinician would be able to create a medical guideline for a precondition by selecting clinical decision options following a current treatment or diagnostic steps selected in a patient treatment process. These are not only mental processes as observations, evaluations and analysis, but the clinician would be expected to perform while providing a healthcare service to the patient.
Applicant argues that the claims recite elements which integrate a practical application, liken to claim 42. see pgs. 13-16 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Describing the benefits of tracking and displaying the sequence of a user's selection of nodes in a decision tree of a medical guideline by accessing the relevant medical treatment information from the medical guideline for different patients (P0024 of Spec.) is starkly different from claiming actual steps in a technological process. For example, what machine learning, robotics or recognition software is being used to navigate through huge documents to identify different treatment options and outcomes for different patients at different stages of the disease or treatment. Unlike Example 42, where storing and formatting a patient condition update prompts automatic messaging and transmission, the instant case is not a technical improvement, not using technology and doesn’t even require a computer to perform. Also, there is no evidence to show that it improves the structural or functional properties of the computer. Respectfully, the claims as amended are not patent eligible under guidelines of MPEP §2106.05.
Applicant argues that additional limitations comprise an unconventional combination of additional limitations, which is significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. (Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)) (a patent-eligible improvement to graphical user interface). see pg. 15-16 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
In this case, although the claims involve generating a graph extracted from a medical guideline, providing a graphical presentation in the form of decision tree nodes, traversing a timeline of timestamps and exporting a document, these technologies are not applied in a way that clearly improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technical field. This is not an improvement to the graphical user interface within the meaning of Core Wireless, the use of an interface could arguably streamline or automate a process, but there is no clear enhancement to the technology itself. The claimed steps of generating data, extracting, traversing timestamps, and exporting medical references are generally standard data processing tasks that are automated, not innovations in how computers or algorithms operate. When considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding the prior art rejections, the Examiner has entered a new rejection under 35 USC § 103 and applied art already of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-5509. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30 am -6:30 pm.
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.
/T.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3687 06/25/2026
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights