DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to Applicant’s communication filed on October 21st, 2025.
Claims 1 and 5 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claim 4 has been canceled.
Claim 9 has been added.
Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to for stating “the processing circuitry is configured compares”. For the purposes of compact prosecution, this limitation will be interpreted as “the processing circuitry is configured to compare”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis:
Independent Claim 1 is directed toward a system and thus falls into one of the four statutory categories. Dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-9 are also directed toward a system and therefore also fall into one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Analysis – Prong One:
Claim 1, which is indicative of the inventive concept, recites the following:
A medical information processing apparatus comprising:
and processing circuitry configured to: generate a weight table, a display candidate table, and an optimization table:
acquire a plurality of medical information pieces for a target patient, the medical information pieces including a plurality of actual data pieces, and data types and periods respectively specifying the actual data pieces;
acquire, based on the acquired medical information pieces, a plurality of support information pieces which individually include a plurality of disease risks calculated for the target patient, and respective weights of the medical information pieces related to the respective disease risks, the weights each representing a degree to which the corresponding actual data piece contributes to calculation of the disease risks;
write, into the weight table, each of the acquired weights in association with the data type and the period in the medical information used for its acquisition and with identification information for distinguishing the corresponding support information, wherein the actual data piece in the medical information is not written into the weight table;
acquire the weight table to judge whether or not each of the weights in the weight table is equal to or above a threshold and determine each of the medical information pieces of which weight is equal to or above the threshold to be a display candidate;
generate an index which, with a corresponding piece of support information, uniquely identifies a combination of determined medical information pieces and corresponding weight;
write, into the display candidate table, the determined medical information pieces, weights, identification information pieces for distinguishing corresponding support information pieces, and the indexes;
decide whether or not to integrate the respective medical information pieces based on the respective medical information pieces, the indexes and the plurality of support information pieces in the display candidate table;
write, into an optimization target table, the plurality of support information pieces, costs based on an index value and a weight, and the identification information pieces of the medical information pieces to be integrated as a result of the decision, associated with each other;
determine an arrangement of the medical information pieces to be integrated and an arrangement of the medical information pieces to be non-integrated by adjusting a size of a display region by adjusting a height and a width of the display region based upon the costs using a genetic algorithm and a maximum display size constraint;
and control a display such that the display displays the medical information pieces to be non-integrated in respective display regions which are associated with respective disease risks and display the medical information pieces to be integrated in a display region associated with a plurality of disease risks based on the determined arrangement,
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to determine an estimated height and width of each piece of medical information and to determine the height and width display regions corresponding to the medical information pieces to be integrated and to the medical information pieces to be non-integrated,
and a memory configured to store a weight table, a display candidate table and optimization target table;.
The series of steps as recited in underline above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teachings, and following rules or instructions- in this case, acquiring a plurality of information, writing into a weight table, generating an index, writing into a display candidate table, deciding whether or not to integrate the information pieces into the table, and determining an arrangement of the pieces), e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-9 include other limitations directed toward the abstract idea. For example, Claim 2 recites the medical information pieces includes a data type and date and the determination of whether or not to integrate the information based on if there is an identical type/date, Claim 3 recites determining an arrangement of the medical information pieces, Claim 5 recites adjusting the size of the display region so that an order of the size is proportional to the disease risks and the weight, Claim 6 recites calculating disease risks and a ratio of points to determine which information to use as a display candidate, Claim 7 recites storing the disease risks and the weights of pieces and determining the information pieces as display candidates using support and weight information, Claim 8 recites displaying the support and medical information pieces based on the determined arrangements, Claim 9 recites comparing the display candidate table with the optimization target table and extracting pieces to be non-integrated. These limitations only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04. Additionally, any limitations in the dependent claims not addressed above are part of the additional elements and will be further addressed below. Hence, dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-9 are nonetheless directed toward fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim.
Step 2A Analysis – Prong Two:
Claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e., the non-underlined limitations above- in this case, the processing circuitry, memory, and display) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer parts. For example, Applicant’s specification explains that “the touch panel display (or touch screen) equipped with a display screen and a touch pad integrated with each other, or the like, which inputs various instructions, commands, information, selections, and settings from an operator (user) to the main body of the medical information processing apparatus”, and, “an example of the input interface 12 comprises an electric signal processing circuitry that receives an electric signal corresponding to an input operation from an external input device provided separately from the device and outputs the electric signal to the processing circuitry15” which are generic computer components (see paragraph 0051). Furthermore, paragraph 0035 discloses the functionalities of various embodiments are implemented on “one or more general-purpose computers”. The specification describes the processor in a generic manner: "processor" used in the above description means, for example, a CPU (central processing 5unit), a PU (Graphics Processing Unit), or a circuit such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a programmable logic device (for example, Simple Programmable Logic Device (SPLD)), a complex programmable logic device (CPLD), and a field programmable gate array (FPGA)” (see ¶ 0122). MPEP 2106.05(f)(1) states (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer from the applicant’s specification that the above additional elements are purely generic. Additionally, the storing of data is merely adding an insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea. Thus, these additional limitations, considered individually and in combination, amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a general-purpose computer or use the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and therefore do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without practical application.
Dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-9 recite additional elements. Claim 2 recites the previously recited processing circuitry and specifies the processing circuitry decides whether or not to integrate the information pieces according to whether or not the information includes data types and dates. Claim 3 recites the processing circuitry and specifies the processing circuitry determines the arrangement of the medical information pieces to be non-integrated and integrated. Claim 5 recites the processing circuitry and specifies the processing circuitry adjusts the size of the display region so that an order of the size is proportional to the disease risk and weight. Claim 6 recites the processing circuitry and specifies the processing circuitry calculates disease risks and calculates a ratio of points of each medical information pieces, and it determines respective pieces as display candidates based on the support information and the calculated weights. Claim 7 recites the previously recited processing circuitry and the memory and states the memory stores the disease risks and weights of the medical information pieces and the circuitry refers to the memory to acquire support information pieces and determine if the medical information pieces are display candidates by using the support pieces and the weights. Claim 8 recites the previously recited processing circuitry and the display and specifies the processing circuitry controls a display to display the plurality of support information pieces and the medical information pieces as the display candidates based on the determined arrangements. Claim 9 recites the processing circuitry and specifies the processing circuitry compares the display candidate table with the optimization target table and extracts medical information pieces which are present in the display candidate table but are not present in the optimization table. However, these additional elements are used in their expected fashion, so they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, and hence, do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claims, individually or in combination, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements of the memory, display, and the processing circuitry in the claim amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The courts have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g. at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity: iv) storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) OIP Techs., 788 F.3dat 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. (MPEP §2106.05(d)II)). Here, the steps are storing and retrieving information in memory, which has been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely stating “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). Thus, the mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an invention concept and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-3 and 5-9 recite previously recited additional elements, which are not eligible for the reasons stated above, and further narrow the abstract idea. Claim 2 recites the previously recited processing circuitry and specifies the processing circuitry decides whether or not to integrate the information pieces according to whether or not the information includes data types and dates. Claim 3 recites the processing circuitry and specifies the processing circuitry determines the arrangement of the medical information pieces to be non-integrated and integrated. Claim 5 recites the processing circuitry and specifies the processing circuitry adjusts the size of the display region so that an order of the size is proportional to the disease risk and weight. Claim 6 recites the processing circuitry and specifies the processing circuitry calculates disease risks and calculates a ratio of points of each medical information pieces, and it determines respective pieces as display candidates based on the support information and the calculated weights. Claim 7 recites the previously recited processing circuitry and the memory and states the memory stores the disease risks and weights of the medical information pieces and the circuitry refers to the memory to acquire support information pieces and determine if the medical information pieces are display candidates by using the support pieces and the weights. Claim 8 recites the previously recited processing circuitry and the display and specifies the processing circuitry controls a display to display the plurality of support information pieces and the medical information pieces as the display candidates based on the determined arrangements. Claim 9 recites the processing circuitry and specifies the processing circuitry compares the display candidate table with the optimization target table and extracts medical information pieces which are present in the display candidate table but are not present in the optimization table. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Hence, Claims 1-3 and 5-9 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa et al. (US 20150339447 A1) in view of Alzubaidi et al. (Alzubaidi et al. “A novel computational method for assigning weights of importance to symptoms of COVID-19 patients.” Artificial intelligence in medicine vol. 112 (2021)), Francois et al. (US 20170262604 A1), and Troiano et al. (Troiano et al., "A Preliminary Experience in Optimizing the Layout of Web Pages by Genetic Algorithms to Fit Mobile Devices," 2009 Ninth International Conference on Intelligent Systems Design and Applications, Pisa, Italy, 2009).
Regarding Claim 1, Kitagawa discloses the following:
processing circuitry configured to: (Kitagawa discloses as shown in FIG. 5, computers that form the servers 11, 16, and 17 and the client terminal 12 have basically the same configuration, and each computer includes a central processing unit (CPU) 21,…[0094, see also Fig. 5]. A central processing unit (CPU) is processing circuitry.)
generate …a display candidate [table] and an optimization target [table]: (Kitagawa discloses the selection candidate display field 68 is a field for displaying the selection candidates of display items, and the selected item display field 69 is a field for displaying the selected display items that are selected from the selection candidate display field 68 [0118]. As shown in Fig. 8, the candidate display field is a table, and the candidates are used to determine which to display. The candidate display field is interpreted as the display table. The…general user can also view an item (non-setting item) other than display items that are set so as to be associated with each group unit of medical care in the display item setting table 18 [0087, see also the display item setting table of Fig. 4]. The display item setting table is interpreted to be the optimization table, and non-setting items are interpreted as items not being integrated.)
acquire a plurality of medical information pieces for a target patient, the medical information pieces including a plurality of actual data pieces, and data types and periods respectively specifying the actual data pieces (Kitagawa discloses in operation method of a medical assistance device of the invention includes an association setting step, a medical information acquisition step, and a parameter output step. In the association setting step, it is possible to set display items displayed on a display screen including medical information of a patient and a diagnostic assistance program for outputting diagnostic assistance information to assist diagnosis of the patient [0033]. Information regarding the date and time such as an examination date or a measurement date,…and attributes are included in the record. Attributes are information given to classify data [0077-0078].)
acquire, based on the acquired medical information pieces, a plurality of support information pieces…(Kitagawa discloses support information pieces which include different disease groups as seen in Figure 10. The display of the support information in Fig. 10 is the same use of support information shown in Fig. 5 of the disclosure.)
…in association with the data type and the period in the medical information used for its acquisition and with identification information for distinguishing the corresponding support information, (Kitagawa discloses information regarding the date and time such as an examination date or a measurement date, acquired data content (examination value or measurement value), and attributes are included in the record for one case of each item of medical information [0077]. The outputting in the identifiable form means…outputting the first medical information with identification information [0017].)
write, into an optimization target table, the plurality of support information pieces, …and the identification information pieces of the medical information pieces to be integrated as a result of the decision, associated with each other; (Kitagawa does not disclose the integration table having the support and identification pieces written into it, but this modification would have been combining prior art elements using known methods to yield predictable results.)
determine an arrangement of the medical information pieces to be integrated and an arrangement of the medical information pieces to be non-integrated (Kitagawa discloses display items to be used for diagnosis and a diagnostic assistance program to be started according to the display items can be determined for each disease. If a diagnostic assistance program suitable for diagnosis is determined for each disease, a diagnostic assistance program Suitable for diagnosis is automatically selected by the designation of a disease. As a result, compared with a case of searching for a diagnostic assistance program to be started each time, working efficiency is improved [0149]. The display of the non-setting item may be prohibited, or the display priority of the non-setting item may be set to be lower than that of the display item. In other words, it is preferable to set the display priority of the display item to be higher than that of the non-setting item [0087].)
control a display such that the display displays the medical information pieces to be non-integrated in respective display regions which are associated with respective disease risks and display the medical information pieces to be integrated in a display region associated with a plurality of disease risks based on the determined arrangement (Kitagawa discloses the display screen 15 is created so as to be able to be scrolled. In the case of a scrollable form, the priority of the display item is set to be higher than that of the non-setting item in connection with the arrangement order of the display screen 15. Therefore…display items having a high arrangement order are displayed on the initial display screen 15 on which no scroll operation is required, and non-setting items having a low arrangement order can be displayed by the scroll operation [0087-0088].)
a memory configured to store the … display candidate table, and optimization target table… (Kitagawa discloses each computer includes…a memory 22, a storage device 23 [0094].)
Kitagawa is silent regarding use of a weight table which is met by Alzubaidi:
a weight table, (Alzubaidi teaches a weight table which lists weighted scores for each symptom of the COVID-19 symptoms (see Table 4).)
acquire… respective weights of the medical information pieces related to the respective disease risks, the weights each representing a degree to which the corresponding actual data piece contributes to calculation of the disease risks (Alzubaidi teaches feature selection can also be used to rank the current features within a given dataset, based on their importance, starting from the most informative features down to the least informative. If a weight that quantifies the importance and informativeness of a feature can be assigned to each feature in the dataset, it helps in the ranking process… (p. 3, section 2.3). The symptoms which are ranked are used in the prediction of a person in having COVID-19.)
write, into the weight table, each of the acquired weights…wherein the actual data piece in the medical information is not written into the weight table; (Figure 1 of Alzubaidi displays a chart which shows the symptoms of COVID-19 and their determined weights. There is no patient specific medical information included in the tables showing the weights, just the symptom and its respective weight (see Fig. 1, Table 4).)
generate an index which, with a corresponding piece of support information, uniquely identifies a combination of determined medical information pieces and corresponding weight; (Table 4 of Alzubaidi shows an index which aligns which each medical information piece and the corresponding weight. This use of the index is identical to the table shown in Fig. 5 of the disclosure's drawings.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for acquiring a plurality of medical information, providing diagnosis assistance, and displaying information as disclosed by Kitagawa to incorporate calculating weights for the medical information based on the level of importance of the information piece as taught by Alzubaidi. This modification would create a system which is capable of displaying the most critical information to the user and improve the prediction of the disease state (see Alzubaidi, p. 3, ¶ 0001, 0016).
Kitagawa and Alzubaidi are silent regarding determining if the data is above a specified threshold to be displayed which is met by Francois:
…which individually include a plurality of disease risks calculated for the target patient, (Francois teaches computer-executable instructions for: determining whether a patient…is at risk of experiencing a significant adverse change in health [0018].)
acquire the [weight table] to judge whether or not each of the weights in the [weight table] is equal to or above a threshold and determine each of the medical information pieces of which [weight] is equal to or above the threshold… (Francois teaches the system may store information identifying normal ranges,… limits above which a value is considered to indicate a deterioration or potential deterioration in the patient's health [0182].)
decide whether or not to integrate the respective medical information pieces based on the respective medical information pieces,…and the plurality of support information pieces…;…determine…. corresponding to the medical information pieces to be integrated and to the medical information pieces to be non-integrated,…(Francois teaches a computer program which accepts a plurality of data types from a user and determines a health score from the data, and determines if the data is significant enough to notify a healthcare worker [0180]. The invention provides systems and methods that integrate health data obtained from a patient in the course of his or her daily life with health data obtained from other sources, such as the data from the patient's electronic medical records maintained by one or more health care institutions or data from payers to which claims for reimbursement for the provision of health care services have been submitted [0004].)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for acquiring a plurality of medical information, providing diagnosis assistance, and displaying information as disclosed by Kitagawa to incorporate determining if the values are above a specified threshold and calculating disease risks as taught by Francois. This modification would create a system capable of allowing for health information to be leveraged more effectively for improved healthcare (see Francois, ¶ 0002).
Kitagawa, Alzubaidi, and Francois do not teach the following limitations met by Troiano:
costs based on an index value and a weight, (Troiano teaches The product of C(x) and T(x) requires both contributions to be maximized. C(x) = w1 · A1(x) + w2 · A2(x) + w3 · A3(x) w1 + w2 + w3 (2) where A1(x) is an index of how the…constraint is met, whilst A2(x) is referred to the occupation constraint (area maximization of device display) and A3(x) to the area waste constraint. These three factor are opportunely traded off by weights wi with i = 1..3 (p. 4, ¶ 0006). C(x) is interpreted as a cost based on an index (A) and weight (w).)
…adjusting a size of a display region…(Troiano teaches delivering content adapted to the needs and constraints of mobile devices…There are different strategies to deal with mobile devices: (i) to deliver pages adapted to mobile requirements, (ii) to automatically fit pages in a standard structure as the single column layout,…(p. 1, ¶ 0001). The algorithm can arbitrarily change width or height of the button, ensuring a correct visualization of the label inside. Parameters: width resize ratio and height resize ratio (p. 3, ¶ 0009).)
…by adjusting a height and a width of the display region based upon the costs using a genetic algorithm and a maximum display size constraint (Troiano teaches we successfully tested genetic algorithms in re-arranging the disposition of Web form fields on different pages according to some constraints (P. 2, ¶ 0010). Depending on what kind a page element is, different optimization parameters are made available. More specifically, elements we are interested to optimize are:… Textual Button: a simple labeled button. The algorithm can arbitrarily change width or height of the button, ensuring a correct visualization of the label inside. Parameters: width resize ratio and height resize ratio (p. 3, ¶ 0009).)
the processing circuity is further configured to determine an estimated height and width of each piece of…information and to determine the height and width of the display regions (Troiano teaches depending on what kind a page element is, different optimization parameters are made available. More specifically, elements we are interested to optimize are:… Textual Button: a simple labeled button. The algorithm can arbitrarily change width or height of the button, ensuring a correct visualization of the label inside. Parameters: width resize ratio and height resize ratio (p. 3, ¶ 0009).)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for acquiring a plurality of medical information, providing diagnosis assistance, and displaying information as disclosed by Kitagawa to incorporate the use of a genetic algorithm to optimize the size of display features as taught by Troiano. This modification would create a system capable of delivering the most optimal content disposition and size (see Troiano, p. 1, ¶ 0002).
Regarding Claim 2, Kitagawa, Alzubaidi, Francois, and Troiano teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Kitagawa further discloses:
Each of the plurality of medical information pieces include a data type and date (Kitagawa discloses information regarding the date and time such as an examination date or a measurement date,…and attributes are included in the record. Attributes are information given to classify data. [0077-0078].)
and the processing circuitry is further configured (Kitagawa discloses computers that form the servers 11, 16, and 17 and the client terminal 12 have basically the same configuration, and each computer includes a central processing unit (CPU) [0094]. The CPU 21 performs overall control of each unit of the computer by loading the control program stored in the storage device 23 to the memory 22 and executing the processing according to the program. The communication I/F 24 is a network interface for transmission control through the network 14 [0096].)
to decide whether or not to integrate respective medical information pieces …among a plurality of medical information pieces used for calculating disease risks that are adjacent to each other when the disease risks are arranged side by side in order. Kitagawa discloses all of the information given in the claimed invention regarding the data types included in the data processing apparatus. The term “index values” used in claim 2 point merely point to a data type that has a quantity attached to it, which is disclosed but referred to as the values of the data points [0072, 0009, 0089]. The only detail of claim 2 not explicitly taught by Kitagawa is the concept of the data arranged side by side in order. However, Kitagawa does teach the concept of adjusting the arrangement of the data display on the screen to be prioritized based on the type and value of the data.
…medical information pieces include…data type and date…(Kitagawa discloses information regarding the date and time such as an examination date or a measurement date, acquired data content (examination value or measurement value), and attributes are included in the record for one case of each item of medical information [0077]. The outputting in the identifiable form means…outputting the first medical information with identification information [0017]. )
Kitagawa and Alzubaidi, do not teach the comparison of data which is met by Francois:
according to whether or not the [medical information pieces] include an identical data type…within an identical period (Francois teaches the knowledge base may be checked for inconsistencies, by, comparing all rows pairwise and determining whether one is a subset of the other, and any such consistencies may be corrected [0239].)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for acquiring a plurality of medical information, providing diagnosis assistance, and displaying information including medical information data types and dates as disclosed by Kitagawa to incorporate determining if the values are consistent by comparing data with one another as taught by Francois. This modification would create a system capable of allowing for health information to be leveraged more effectively for improved healthcare (see Francois, ¶ 0002).
Regarding Claim 3, Kitagawa, Alzubaidi, Francois, and Troiano teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Kitagawa further discloses:
The processing circuitry is further configured to (Kitagawa discloses the CPU 21 performs overall control of each unit of the computer by loading the control program stored in the storage device 23 to the memory 22 and executing the processing according to the program. The communication I/F 24 is a network interface for transmission control through the network 14 [0096].)
determine the arrangement such that the medical information pieces to be non-integrated are arranged side by side along a row or column direction in association with each of the support information pieces (Kitagawa teaches a medical assistance device which uses a customizable display of the medical information based upon what is selected by the user [0007]. An attribute display column 48 regarding the display item is provided in each of the subregions 41A to 41D [0106, Fig. 7]. This display system separates important information pieces from “non-setting” pieces which is any information piece that is not high enough priority to be placed on the screen. The settings can be changed by the user based on whether or not the non-setting items should be displayed and in what manner.
and determine the arrangement such that the medical information pieces to be integrated are arranged side by side in a column or row direction perpendicular to the former direction in associated with a plurality of support information pieces. (Kitagawa discloses that the arrangement of medical information pieces can be displayed in a plurality of arrangement options with the automatic display being with the highest priority items at the top of the display [0089].)
Regarding Claim 8, Kitagawa, Alzubaidi, Francois, and Troiano teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Kitagawa further discloses:
processing circuitry is further configured to control a display to display the plurality of support information pieces (Kitagawa discloses the CPU 21 performs overall control of each unit of the computer by loading the control program stored in the storage device 23 to the memory 22 and executing the processing according to the program [0096]. Display items of medical information displayed on the viewer terminal may differ depending on the group unit of medical care, and the range of display items set so as to be viewable by a doctor also changes with the group unit of medical care…Since the diagnosis is performed in the range of display items that can be viewed by a doctor, it is preferable that the diagnostic assistance information provided to the doctor by the medical assistance system can also be used in the range of display items [0010].)
and the medical information pieces as the display candidates based on the determined arrangements (Kitagawa discloses the association setting unit can set display items displayed on a display screen including medical information of a patient [0017]. There is a method of changing the priority according to the arrangement order on the display screen 15 [0088].)
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa, Alzubaidi, Francois, and Troiano as applied to Claim 1 above in view of Inoue et al. (US 20150019246 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Kitagawa, Alzubaidi, Francois, and Troiano teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Kitagawa further discloses:
the processing circuitry is further configured to (Kitagawa discloses the CPU 21 performs overall control of each unit of the computer by loading the control program stored in the storage device 23 to the memory 22 and executing the processing according to the program [0096].)
Kitagawa and Francois do not teach the weight which is met by Alzubaidi:
…and the weight (Alzubaidi teaches if a weight that quantifies the importance and informativeness of a feature can be assigned to each feature in the dataset, it helps in the ranking process…(p. 3, section 2.3). The symptoms which are ranked are used in the prediction of a person in having COVID-19.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for acquiring a plurality of medical information, providing diagnosis assistance, and displaying information as disclosed by Kitagawa to incorporate calculating weights for the medical information based on the level of importance of the information piece as taught by Alzubaidi. This modification would create a system which is capable of displaying the most critical information to the user and improve the prediction of the disease state (see Alzubaidi, p. 3, ¶ 0001, 0016).
Kitagawa, Alzubaidi, Francois, and Troiano do not teach changing the size of the display based upon the weight and disease risk which is met by Inoue:
adjust the size of the display region so that an order of the size is proportional to the disease risk …[weight] (Inoue teaches the plurality of display item groups may be sorted in the order of priority and display item group names may be displayed in the descending order of priority, in which display item group names may be displayed by changing the degree of emphasis by changing the size or color of the character according to the priority or a numerical value or an index representing the priority may be displayed with respect to each display item group name [0037].)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for acquiring a plurality of medical information, providing diagnosis assistance, and displaying information as disclosed by Kitagawa to incorporate prioritize data based off of a determined importance scale as taught by Inoue. This modification would create a predetermined algorithm which arranges data such that the user is able to see the information of the utmost importance (see Inoue ¶ 0006-7).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa, Alzubaidi, Francois, and Troiano as applied to Claim 1 above in view of Kaoru et al. (JP 2022148729 A).
Regarding Claim 6, Kitagawa, Alzubaidi, Francois, and Troiano teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Kitagawa further discloses the following:
processing circuitry is further configured to: (Kitagawa discloses the CPU 21 performs overall control of each unit of the computer by loading the control program stored in the storage device 23 to the memory 22 and executing the processing according to the program. The communication I/F 24 is a network interface for transmission control through the network 14 [0096].)
…to acquire a plurality of support information pieces which individually include the respective disease risks,… (Kitagawa discloses support information pieces which include different disease groups as seen in Figure 10. The display of the support information in Fig. 10 is the same use of support information shown in Fig. 5 of the disclosure.)
and determine respective medical information pieces as the display candidates by using the acquired plurality of support information pieces…(Kitagawa discloses the priority of the display item is set to be higher than that of the non-setting item in connection with the arrangement order of the display screen 15. Therefore, for example, display items having a high arrangement order are displayed on the initial display screen 15 on which no scroll operation is required, and non-setting items having a low arrangement order can be displayed by the scroll operation [0088].)
Kitagawa, Alzubaidi, Francois, and Troiano do not teach the following limitations met by Kaoru:
based on a calculation model for calculating a disease risk by summing points obtained by individually scoring the acquired medical information pieces, (Kaoru teaches one example is the Suita score, which predicts future onset of angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, etc. …The Suita score uses, as risk factors, biological information and lifestyle habits of subjects such as age, sex, current smoking, diabetes, blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and CKD (chronic kidney disease). A subject is given a score for each type of these risk factors,… (p. 10, ¶ 0003). The CHADS .sub.2 score is a risk evaluation value obtained by totaling scores according to the presence or absence of risk factors for heart failure, hypertension, age 75 or older, diabetes, and cerebral infarction/transient ischemic attack (p. 11, ¶ 0004).)
calculate respective disease risks from the acquired plurality of medical information pieces… (Kaoru teaches based on the total score, the subject's 10-year probability of developing coronary artery disease is obtained…in the case of age, discrete scores are determined according to which one of the categorized stepwise numerical ranges such as 35 to 44 years old, 45 to 54 years old, and so on. In the case of blood pressure, discrete scores such as optimal blood pressure, normal blood pressure, Stage 1 hypertension, and Stage 2 or higher hypertension are determined according to blood pressure conditions (p. 10, ¶ 0003).)
and calculate a ratio of points of each of the acquired plurality of medical information pieces to total points as the acquired weight of each of the medical information pieces; (Kaoru teaches the test data D5 is divided into three groups: a group G1 whose chest X-ray age is younger, a group G2 whose chest X-ray age is almost the same as the actual age, and a group G3 whose chest X-ray age is higher, separated into two groups. Group G1 and group G3 are each 20% of the total, and group G2 is 60% of the total (p. 9, ¶ 0007). This is interpreted as the ratio of individual values to the total. When the calculation formula is a weighted addition of evaluation parameters, weights for other evaluation parameters may be determined according to the value of the evaluation parameter corresponding to the X-ray age or age difference. An evaluation target is information about a disease or pathological condition, such as severity of the disease or pathological condition, prognosis prediction, or the like (p. 12, ¶ 0006). The age difference between the chest X-ray age and the chronological age reflects the severity of the disease (p. 13, ¶ 0005). This is interpreted as the determining the weight of the individual values.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system for acquiring a plurality of medical information, providing diagnosis assistance, and displaying information as disclosed by Kitagawa to incorporate calculating a disease risk based on a calculation model calculates a disease risk score as the total of scores for individual medical information pieces as taught by Kaoru. This modification would create a system which is capable of providing useful information for judging the state of health of a patient and therefore a treatment policy (see Kaoru, p. 1, ¶ 0001).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitagawa, Alzubaidi, Francois, and Troiano as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishimura et al. (US 20040059215 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Kitagawa, Alzubaidi, Francois, and Troiano teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Kitagawa further discloses the following:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: (Kitagawa discloses as shown in FIG. 5, computers that form the servers 11, 16, and 17 and the client terminal 12 have basically the same configuration, and each computer includes a central processing unit (CPU) 21,…[0094, see also Fig. 5]. A central processing unit (CPU) is processing circuitry.)
refer to the memory based on the acquired plurality of medical information pieces to acquire a plurality of support information pieces which individually include the disease risks related to the plurality of diseases, (Kitagawa discloses support information pieces which include different disease groups as seen in Fig. 10. The display of the support information in Fig. 10 is the same use of support information shown in Fig. 5 of the disclosure. A plurality of disease selection portions 66 are provided [0117]. The server group…is a server that stores the medical information of a patient, and an electronic medical record server 16, an image server 17, and the like are included in the server group 13 [0070].)
and respective weights of a plurality of medical information pieces related to the respective disease risks (Alzubaidi teaches if a weight that quantifies the importance and informativeness of a feature can be assigned to each feature in the dataset, it helps in the ranking process…(p. 3, section 2.3). The symptoms which are ranked are used in the prediction of a person in having COVID-19.)
associated with the plurality of diseases. (Inoue teaches a plurality of diseases can be assumed, for example, a checkbox may be displayed on the display screen with respect to each disease name extracted from the electronic medical record or the discharge summary, as illustrated in FIG. 2A, and the disease whose checkbox is checked may be obtained as the assumed disease [0097].)
Kitagawa, Alzubaidi, Francois, and Troiano do not teach the following limitations met by Francois :
determine the respective medical information pieces as the display candidates by using the acquired plurality of support information pieces and the respective weights; (Francois teaches a system for tracking health in which the data inputted is scored and the system determines whether or not to notify a healthcare provider depending on the score of data. Although this art does not display certain candidates, it does use a weighted calculation to determine whether or not to integrate the data (Claim 73).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of receiving data points and determining weighting coefficients as disclosed by Kitagawa to incorporate a decision system to output the most relevant data that could indicate a disease as taught by Francois. The modifications would create a system whi