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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-143849, filed on September 3, 2021.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed on October 27, 2025, the following has occurred: claim(s) 1, 10-11, 19-20 have been amended and claim(s) 8-9 have been canceled. Now, claim(s) 1-6, 10-17, 19-21 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “…two of the state types as…” in p. 3, ll. 16. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “…two of the plurality of state types…”.
Claim 19 objected to because of the following informalities: “…two of the state types as…” in p. 9, ll. 2. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “…two of the plurality of state types…”.
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: “…two of the state types as…” in p. 10, ll. 18. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, the Examiner will interpret the claimed portion as “…two of the plurality of state types…”.
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 1-6, 10-17, 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recite(s)
acquire, time series data on the state of the first user and the action taken by the first user and/or the second user, the time series data including a state-and-action set for each time step; determine whether the action in the acquired time series data is taken by the first user or the second user;
calculate a first state assessment index representing a first user's assessment of the state based on the first user's state and the actions relating to the first user, and calculate a second state assessment index representing a second user's assessment of the state based on the first user's state and the actions relating to the second user, the state including a time series of combinations of a plurality of state values respectively corresponding to a plurality of state types, each of the first state assessment index and the second state assessment index having one value for the combination of each time in the time series;
generate a first distribution of the first state assessment index in a state space defined by the plurality of state types and a second distribution of the second state assessment index in a state space defined by the plurality of state types; and
calculate the first state assessment index, based on a state of a processing-targeted steps a state of a step next to the processing-targeted step among acquired states, and an action of the first user taken between the state of the processing-targeted step and the state of the next step, and
calculate the second state assessment index, based on a state of a processing-targeted step, a state of a step next to the processing-targeted step among the acquired states, and an action of the second user taken between the state of the processing-targeted step and the state of the next step, and
automatically designate a plane having two of the plurality of state types as the state space
These limitations, as drafted given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for generic computer components, encompass managing interactions between people, including following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, but for the generic computer components of “a storage apparatus that stores a medical care record database for a first user and a second user, the medical care record database including an administration record of an instruction order and a nursing record, the administration record storing, in chronological order, an action actually taken by the second user for the instruction order, the nursing record storing, in chronological order, a state of the first user and an action taken by the first user and/or the second user for the state of the first user, the first user is a patient, and the second user is family of the patient, a clinician and/or a nursing care service worker”, “processing circuitry configured to”, “…by applying the administration record and/or nursing record to natural language processing,…”, “…by inverse reinforcement learning, as a reward of the inverse reinforcement learning,…”, “…by inverse reinforcement learning, as a reward of the inverse reinforcement learning,…”, the claim encompasses a user following rules or instructions to obtain time series data on the state of the first user and the action taken by the first user and/or the second user, the time series data including a state-and-action set for each time step, a user following rules or instructions to determine whether the action in the acquired time series data is taken by the first user or the second user, a user following rules or instructions to calculate a first and second state assessment index, a user following rules or instructions to determine a first distribution and a second distribution, and a user following rules or instructions to designate a plane having two of the plurality of state types as the state space. These steps encompass steps that could be performed manually by users following rules or instructions to identify different state assessment index values which constitute Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. These steps could be carried out by individuals following rules or instructions, such as doctors or clinical staff.
Claim 1: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract idea along with generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and insignificant, extra-solution activity.
Claim 1, directly or indirectly, recite the following generic computer components configured to implement the abstract idea: “a storage apparatus that stores a medical care record database for a first user and a second user, the medical care record database including an administration record of an instruction order and a nursing record, the administration record storing, in chronological order, an action actually taken by the second user for the instruction order, the nursing record storing, in chronological order, a state of the first user and an action taken by the first user and/or the second user for the state of the first user, the first user is a patient, and the second user is family of the patient, a clinician and/or a nursing care service worker”, “processing circuitry configured to”. As set forth in the MPEP 2106.05(f) "merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer" is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the claim recites “…by applying the administration record and/or nursing record to natural language processing,…”, “…by inverse reinforcement learning, as a reward of the inverse reinforcement learning,…”, and “…by inverse reinforcement learning, as a reward of the inverse reinforcement learning,…” at a high degree of generality, amount no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technical environment. The recitation is also similar to adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(f), merely reciting the words “apply it” or an equivalent, is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Additionally, the claim recites “display the first distribution and the second distribution,”, “display the first distribution and the second distribution in the designated plane” that amounts to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated. As set forth in MPEP 2106.05(g), adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1: Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of
the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer configured to perform above identified functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. See Alice 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea
into a patent-eligible invention.”)
Additionally, generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Additionally, insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2-6, 10-17, 21 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea. For example, claims 2-6 describe determining whether the agent of an action is a first user or a second user. Similarly, claims 10-12 further define the state information and first state assessment index and the second state assessment index. Similarly, claims 13-17 further describe the display step. Finally, claim 21 describes determining a difference value between the first state assessment index and the second state assessment index, and use a generic computer component to determine a recommended action candidate for reducing the difference value. Such steps, but for generic computer components encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Dependent claims 2-6, 10-17, 21 recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in independent claim 1 (such as claims 2-4, 6, 10-14, 16-17, 21 recite additional limitations that amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea.) Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 19 and 20 recite the same functions as claim 1 but in apparatus and method form. Therefore, these claims also recite an abstract idea that falls into the Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping of abstract ideas as explained above. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
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 1-2, 6, 10-15, 17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boland et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0181711) in view of Koblick et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0111578) in further view of Kanada (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0040088).
As per independent claim 1, Boland discloses a consensus building support system comprising:
processing circuitry configured to:
determine whether the action in the acquired time series data is taken by the first user or the second user (See Paragraphs [0108], [0l 13]-[0119]: The lifestyle information data is obtained from various sources to obtain an overall representation of the lifestyle of the patient, monitoring and management actions can be performed by an assessor (e.g., a human assessor), which the Examiner is interpreting the human assessor to encompass the second user when combined with Kanada’s acquiring of time series data as described below);
calculate a first state assessment index representing a first user's assessment of the state based on the first user's state and the actions relating to the first user (See Paragraphs [0113]-[0115]: A baseline patient care plan based on an initial diagnosis of the patient's medical condition, one or more categorizations of the patient based on the collected demographic and medical data, the established patient care plan guidelines, and goals to be achieved by the patient care plan, which the Examiner is interpreting a baseline patient care plan to encompass a first state assessment index as the care plan is based on goals for the patient care plan), and calculate a second state assessment index representing a second user's assessment of the state based on the first user's state and the actions relating to the second user (See Paragraphs [0108], [0113]-[0119]: The lifestyle information data is obtained from various sources to obtain an overall representation of the lifestyle of the patient, monitoring and management actions can be performed by an assessor (e.g., a human assessor), which the Examiner is interpreting the human assessor to encompass the second user, and an initial diagnosis of the patient's medical condition to encompass a second state assessment index), the state including a time series of combinations of a plurality of state values respectively corresponding to a plurality of state types, each of the first state assessment index and the second state assessment index having one value for the combination of each time in the time series.
While Boland teaches a system for calculate a first state assessment index representing a first user's assessment of the state based on the first user's state and the actions relating to the first user, and calculate a second state assessment index representing a second user's assessment of the state based on the first user's state and the actions relating to the second user, Boland may not explicitly teach
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
the state including a time series of combinations of a plurality of state values respectively corresponding to a plurality of state types, each of the first state assessment index and the second state assessment index having one value for the combination of each time in the time series;
generate a first distribution of the first state assessment index in a state space defined by the plurality of state types and a second distribution of the second state assessment index in a state space defined by the plurality of state types;
display the first distribution and the second distribution,
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
calculate the first state assessment index by inverse reinforcement learning, as a reward of the inverse reinforcement learning, based on a state of a processingtargeted step, a state of a step next to the processing-targeted step among acquired states, and an action of the first user taken between the state of the processing-targeted step and the state of the next step,
calculate the second state assessment index by inverse reinforcement learning, as a reward of the inverse reinforcement learning, based on a state of a processing-targeted step, a state of a step next to the processing-targeted step among the acquired states, and an action of the second user taken between the state of the processing-targeted step and the state of the next step, and
automatically designate a plane having two of the state types as the state space, and display the first distribution and the second distribution in the designated plane.
Koblick teaches a system for wherein the processing circuitry (See Paragraph [0111]: the appendices submitted herewith provide additional examples, generally in the context of clinical guidance, to demonstrate various features of systems and methods that are programmed (e.g., as computer-readable instructions, which are stored in one or more machine-readable media and executable by one or more processors) to implement a reinforcement learning framework and learning and reasoning within the framework, as disclosed herein) is further configured to:
calculate a first state assessment index representing a first user's assessment of the state based on the first user's state and the actions relating to the first user, and calculate a second state assessment index representing a second user's assessment of the state based on the first user's state and the actions relating to the second user, the state including a time series of combinations of a plurality of state values respectively corresponding to a plurality of state types, each of the first state assessment index and the second state assessment index having one value for the combination of each time in the time series (See Paragraphs [0091]-[0092], [0100]-[0102], [0127]-[0128]: The transition from one or more previously generated state spaces to the new state space, which may involve modifying, adding or removing state space parameters from a current state space, defines a pathway, the pathway thus includes the set of one or more state transitions caused by actions that modify the index case data to connect a series of state spaces, which the Examiner is interpreting the pathway thus includes the set of one or more state transitions caused by actions to encompass the state including a time series of combinations of a plurality of state values respectively corresponding to a plurality of state types as pathway analyzer may implement a combination of look-ahead and look-behind pathways, automatically or in response to a user input, to provide a corresponding set of state transitions and resulting explorative pathways);
generate a first distribution of the first state assessment index in a state space defined by the plurality of state types and a second distribution of the second state assessment index in a state space defined by the plurality of state types (See Paragraphs [0213]-[0216]: Information from the learning identifier may be displayed on the user interface as either a distribution, as a map that includes overlapping the case-files that are normalized, where only a collective of patient case file is shown, and maps of case-files are shown to a particular environment, sub-environment, and sub-sub environment, and the like, and the de-identified information may be recorded in a central or cloud distributed server as a collective of case-files that are combined in a single state space, which the Examiner is interpreting that the information can be displayed as a distribution to encompass the claimed portion);
display the first distribution and the second distribution (See Paragraphs [0213]-[0216]: Information from the learning identifier may be displayed on the user interface as either a distribution, as a map that includes overlapping the case-files that are normalized, where only a collective of patient case file is shown, and maps of case-files are shown to a particular environment, sub-environment, and sub-sub environment, and the like),
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
calculate the first state assessment index by inverse reinforcement learning (See Paragraphs [0237]-[0238]: The inverse reinforcement learning capability, which is facilitated by isomorphic mapping of state-space parameters, allows medical practitioners to start from a selected (e.g., desired or hypothesized) outcome and look backwards of their patient's case, which the Examiner is interpreting the isomorphic mapping of state-space parameters to encompass calculate the first state assessment index ([0107]: The variables can be calculated (e.g., by state space calculator) as a next state in the state-state-space or analyzer can further analyze the equation to lead to a new pathway)), as a reward of the inverse reinforcement learning, based on a state of a processingtargeted step, a state of a step next to the processing-targeted step among acquired states, and an action of the first user taken between the state of the processing-targeted step and the state of the next step (See Paragraphs [0100]-[0102]: The pathway analyzer explores the reward to find a dynamic equilibrium for multiple next states, whi.ch the Examiner is interpreting to encompass a reward of the inverse reinforcement learning, based on a state of a processing-targeted step, a state of a step next to the processing-targeted step among acquired states, and the pathway analyzer is programmed to compute which actions, corresponding to a set of one or more state transitions, optimize the learning identifier based on the scored common factors for one or more explorative pathways, which the Examiner is interpreting compute which actions to encompass an action of the first user taken between the state of the processing-targeted step and the state of the next step),
calculate the second state assessment index by inverse reinforcement learning (See Paragraphs [0237]-[0238]: The inverse reinforcement learning capability, which is facilitated by isomorphic mapping of state-space parameters, allows medical practitioners to start from a selected (e.g., desired or hypothesized) outcome and look backwards of their patient's case, which the Examiner is interpreting the isomorphic mapping of state-space parameters to encompass calculate the second state assessment index ([0107]: The variables can be calculated (e.g., by state space calculator) as a next state in the state-state-space or analyzer can further analyze the equation to lead to a new pathway)), as a reward of the inverse reinforcement learning, based on a state of a processing-targeted step, a state of a step next to the processing-targeted step among the acquired states, and an action of the second user taken between the state of the processing-targeted step and the state of the next step (See Paragraphs [0100]-[0102]: The pathway analyzer explores the reward to find a dynamic equilibrium for multiple next states, which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass as a reward of the inverse reinforcement learning, based on a state of a processing-targeted step, a state of a step next to the processing-targeted step among the acquired states, and the pathway analyzer is programmed to compute which actions, corresponding to a set of one or more state transitions, optimize the learning identifier based on the scored common factors for one or more explorative pathways, which the Examiner is interpreting compute which actions to encompass an action of the second user taken between the state of the processing-targeted step and the state of the next step), and
automatically designate a plane having two of the plurality of state types as the state space (See Paragraphs [0114]-[0116], [0122], [0159]: The graph analyzes the different policy scenarios which inform the medical practitioner what are the deviations and how they impact the patient case if pursued as next states, which the Examiner is interpreting the graph to encompass a plane having two of the plurality of state types as the state space as the combinatorics of the state space, and each next state, or for look ahead can guide the scored common factor differential ([0122])), and display the first distribution and the second distribution in the designated plane (See Paragraph [0008], Claim 1: Displaying on an output device user feedback representing at least one of an indication of an expected outcome, a proposed decision and a proposed intervention according to at least one of the current index state-space and the next-state space for the given patient, which the Examiner is interpreting displaying an output device user feedback to encompass the first distribution and the second distribution in the designated plane.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Boland to include the state including a time series of combinations of a plurality of state values respectively corresponding to a plurality of state types, each of the first state assessment index and the second state assessment index having one value for the combination of each time in the time series; generate a first distribution of the first state assessment index in a state space defined by the plurality of state types and a second distribution of the second state assessment index in a state space defined by the plurality of state types; display the first distribution and the second distribution, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: calculate the first state assessment index by inverse reinforcement learning, as a reward of the inverse reinforcement learning, based on a state of a processingtargeted step, a state of a step next to the processing-targeted step among acquired states, and an action of the first user taken between the state of the processing-targeted step and the state of the next step, calculate the second state assessment index by inverse reinforcement learning, as a reward of the inverse reinforcement learning, based on a state of a processing-targeted step, a state of a step next to the processing-targeted step among the acquired states, and an action of the second user taken between the state of the processing-targeted step and the state of the next step, and automatically designate a plane having two of the state types as the state space, and display the first distribution and the second distribution in the designated plane as taught by Koblick. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Boland with Koblick with the motivation of providing a healthcare companion clinical support guidance (See Background of Koblick in Paragraph [0003].)
While Boland/Koblick teaches the system as described above, Boland/Koblick may not explicitly teach a storage apparatus that stores a medical care record database for a first user and a second user, the medical care record database including an administration record of an instruction order and a nursing record, the administration record storing, in chronological order, an action actually taken by the second user for the instruction order, the nursing record storing, in chronological order, a state of the first user and an action taken by the first user and/or the second user for the state of the first user, the first user is a patient, and the second user is family of the patient, a clinician and/or a nursing care service worker; and
processing circuitry configured to:
acquire, by applying the administration record and/or the nursing record to natural language processing or identifier processing, time series data on the state of the first user and the action taken by the first user and/or the second user, the time series data including a state-and-action set for each time step.
Kanada teaches a system for a storage apparatus that stores a medical care record database for a first user and a second user (See Paragraphs [0053]-[0055]: A medical record database (hereinafter, abbreviated as a database (DB)) server 12 is also connected to the network, which the Examiner is interpreting the medical record database to encompass a medical record database for a first user ([0055]: The medical record DB server has a medical record management function for managing electronic medical records) and a second user ([0056]: The client terminal is operated by a medical staff of a medical facility, such as a doctor who performs medical examination for a patient or a laboratory technician who performs a medical examination)), the medical care record database including an administration record of an instruction order and a nursing record, the administration record storing, in chronological order, an action actually taken by the second user for the instruction order (See Paragraph [0067]: Various kinds of medical examination data are registered in time series together with the dates of acquisition dates, such as measurement dates, examination dates, administration dates, and medical examination dates, which the Examiner is interpreting administration dates to encompass the administration record, the dates of acquisition dates to encompass in chronological order, and measurement dates to encompass an action actually taken by the second user for the instruction order), the nursing record storing, in chronological order, a state of the first user and an action taken by the first user and/or the second user for the state of the first user (See Paragraphs [0056], [0067]: The client terminal is used in the case of viewing diagnostic assistance information or electronic medical records or in the case of inputting various kinds of medical examination data in the electronic medical record, and the medical examination data includes: examination values (measurement values) of vital signs, such as patient's blood pressure, body temperature, heartbeat, pulse, and oxygen saturation; examination values of various medical examinations including subject examinations, such as biochemical examinations and blood tests, or physiological examinations, such as electroencephalographic examinations; and medical examination and/or treatment records in which types and doses of therapeutic drugs, the contents of medical examinations, the contents of treatment, disease names, order of various medical examinations, and events, such as admission and discharge that occurred in the course of medical examination for patients, are recorded, which the Examiner is interpreting medical examination data to encompass the nursing record storing, in chronological order as various kinds of medical examination data are registered in time series together, and events, such as admission and discharge that occurred in the course of medical examination for patients to encompass an action taken by the second user for the state of the first user), the first user is a patient (See Paragraph [0066]: An electronic medical record is registered for each patient so as to be associated with a patient ID), and the second user is family of the patient, a clinician and/or a nursing care service worker (See Paragraph [0056]: The client terminal is operated by a medical staff of a medical facility, such as a doctor who performs medical examination for a patient or a laboratory technician who performs a medical examination);
acquire, by applying the administration record and/or the nursing record to natural language processing or identifier processing, time series data on the state of the first user and the action taken by the first user and/or the second user, the time series data including a state-and-action set for each time step (See Paragraphs [0066]-[0068], [0074], [0195]: These various kinds of medical examination data are registered in time series together with the dates of acquisition dates, such as measurement dates, examination dates, administration dates, and medical examination dates, which the Examiner is interpreting these various kinds of medical examination data are registered in time series together with the dates of acquisition dates to encompass acquire, by applying the administration record and/or the nursing record to identifier processing as the data is associated with the patient ID ([0061]), and interpreting events, such as admission and discharge that occurred in the course of medical examination for patients, are recorded to encompass the time series data including a state-and-action set for each time step.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Boland/Koblick to include a storage apparatus that stores a medical care record database for a first user and a second user, the medical care record database including an administration record of an instruction order and a nursing record, the administration record storing, in chronological order, an action actually taken by the second user for the instruction order, the nursing record storing, in chronological order, a state of the first user and an action taken by the first user and/or the second user for the state of the first user, the first user is a patient, and the second user is family of the patient, a clinician and/or a nursing care service worker; and processing circuitry configured to: acquire, by applying the administration record and/or the nursing record to natural language processing or identifier processing, time series data on the state of the first user and the action taken by the first user and/or the second user, the time series data including a state-and-action set for each time step as taught by Kanada. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Boland/Koblick with Kanada with the motivation of provide various kinds of information for assisting diagnosis to a doctor in the form of electronic data (See Background of the Invention of Kanada in Paragraph [0004].)
Claim(s) 19-20 mirrors claim 1 only within different statutory categories, and are rejected for the same reason as claim 1. The addition of “storing in a medical record database…” in claim 20 is similar to independent claim 1’s recitation of “a storage apparatus that stores a medical care record database” that is encompassed by Kanada as described above.
As per claim 2, Boland/Koblick/Kanada discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Boland further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether an agent of the action is the first user or the second user (See Paragraphs [0108], [0l 13]-[0119]: The lifestyle information data is obtained from various sources to obtain an overall representation of the lifestyle of the patient, monitoring and management actions can be performed by an assessor (e.g., a human assessor), which the Examiner is interpreting the human assessor to encompass the second user.)
As per claim 6, Boland/Koblick/Kanada discloses the system of claims 1-2 as described above. Boland further teaches wherein the processing circuitry performs natural language processing on a character sequence that includes characters describing the action to determine whether an agent of the action is a doctor who is the second user or a patient who is the first user (See Paragraphs [0141]-[0144], [0213]: Natural language processing may evaluate a patient care plan guideline, and NLP can be performed on patient communication to identify patient communication and if a care team member's attention is necessary for a communication session.)
As per claim 10, Boland/Koblick/Kanada discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Boland/Koblick may not explicitly teach wherein if there are three or more state types, the processing circuitry displays distribution of the first state assessment index and/or the second state assessment index in a designated plane defined by one or two state types designated by an operator among the plurality of state types on a display.
Kanada teaches a system wherein if there are three or more state types, the processing circuitry displays distribution of the first state assessment index and/or the second state assessment index in a designated plane defined by one or two state types designated by an operator among the plurality of state types on a display (See Paragraphs [0102]-[0103] and Fig. 12: The display form determination unit generates the display color designation information that summarizes the allocation result of comparative cases, which the Examiner is interpreting the display color designation information to encompass a designated plane defined by one state types designated by an operator among the plurality of state types.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Boland/Koblick to include if there are three or more state types, the processing circuitry displays distribution of the first state assessment index and/or the second state assessment index in a designated plane defined by one or two state types designated by an operator among the plurality of state types on a display as taught by Kanada. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Boland/Koblick with Kanada with the motivation of provide various kinds of information for assisting diagnosis to a doctor in the form of electronic data (See Background of the Invention of Kanada in Paragraph [0004].)
As per claim 11, Boland/Koblick/Kanada discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Boland/Koblick may not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry emphasizes in the distribution a first specific state in which a first state assessment index takes a predetermined value and/or a second specific state in which a second state assessment index takes a predetermined value.
Kanada teaches a system wherein the processing circuitry emphasizes in the distribution a first specific state in which a first state assessment index takes a predetermined value and/or a second specific state in which a second state assessment index takes a predetermined value (See Paragraphs [0120]-[0122]: The line graph of the medical examination target patient is displayed by, for example, a thick black solid line in order to avoid being embedded in the plurality of line graphs of comparative cases, which the Examiner is interpreting the medical examination target patient to encompass a first state assessment index takes a predetermined value.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Boland/Koblick to include the processing circuitry emphasizes in the distribution a first specific state in which a first state assessment index takes a predetermined value and/or a second specific state in which a second state assessment index takes a predetermined value as taught by Kanada. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Boland/Koblick with Kanada with the motivation of provide various kinds of information for assisting diagnosis to a doctor in the form of electronic data (See Background of the Invention of Kanada in Paragraph [0004].)
As per claim 12, Boland/Koblick/Kanada discloses the system of claims 1, 8-9, and 11 as described above. Boland/Koblick may not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to display a diagram showing change over time of the first specific state and/or the second specific state on a display.
Kanada teaches a system wherein the processing circuitry is configured to display a diagram showing change over time of the first specific state and/or the second specific state on a display (See Paragraph [0105] and Fig. 13: The screen display control unit generates a
plurality of line graphs showing time-series changes in the AST examination values of a plurality
of comparative cases, which the Examiner is interpreting the time-series changes to encompass
change over time of the first specific state.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Boland/Koblick to include display a diagram showing change over time of the first specific state and/or the second specific state on a display as taught by Boland/Mei. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Boland/Koblick with Kanada with the motivation of provide various kinds of information for assisting diagnosis to a doctor in the form of electronic data (See Background of the Invention of Kanada in Paragraph [0004].)
As per claim 13, Boland/Koblick/Kanada discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Boland further teaches wherein the processing circuitry displays a difference value between the first state assessment index and the second state assessment index on a display (See Paragraphs [0250]-[0253]: Determining at least one communication to output comprises determining a difference between the desired pattern data and the at least one pattern of dynamic patient monitoring data, and determining a communication to be output to the patient that is directed to minimizing the difference between the desired pattern data and the at least one pattern of dynamic patient monitoring data, which the Examiner is interpreting output comprises determining a difference between the desired pattern data and the at least one pattern of dynamic patient monitoring data to encompass a difference value between the first state assessment index and the second state assessment index.)
As per claim 14, Boland/Koblick/Kanada discloses the system of claims 1 and 13 as described above. Boland/Koblick may not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry displays a difference value between the first state assessment index and the second state assessment index.
Kanada teaches a system wherein the processing circuitry displays a difference value between the first state assessment index and the second state assessment index (See Paragraph [0105] and Fig. 13: The screen display control unit generates a plurality of line graphs showing time-series changes in the AST examination values of a plurality of comparative cases, which the Examiner is interpreting the time-series changes to encompass change over time.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Boland/Koblick to include displays a graph indicating change over time of a difference value between the first state assessment index and the second state assessment index on a display as taught by Kanada. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Boland/Koblick with Kanada with the motivation of provide various kinds of information for assisting diagnosis to a doctor in the form of electronic data (See Background of the Invention of Kanada in Paragraph [0004].)
As per claim 15, Boland/Koblick/Kanada discloses the system of claims 1 and 13-14 as described above. Boland/Koblick may not explicitly teach wherein if the difference value has a value equal to or greater than a threshold value, the processing circuitry emphasizes a time corresponding to a value equal to or greater than the threshold value in the graph.
Kanada teaches a system wherein if the difference value has a value equal to or greater than a threshold value, the processing circuitry emphasizes a time corresponding to a value equal to or greater than the threshold value in the graph (See Paragraphs [0168]- [0172], [0199]: The threshold value of the treatment period may be set based on the standard
treatment period set by the CP or the average treatment period for each disease type or disease
name announced by the public institution, or the same value may be set uniformly regardless of
the CP, disease type, or disease name, the treatment outcomes are color coded, which the
Examiner is interpreting the color coded treatment outcomes to encompass emphasize a time corresponding to a value equal to or greater than the threshold value when combined with Boland.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Boland/Koblick to include if the difference value has a value equal to or greater than a threshold value, the processing circuitry emphasizes a time corresponding to a value equal to or greater than the threshold value in the graph as taught by Kanada. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Boland/Koblick with Kanada with the motivation of provide various kinds of information for assisting diagnosis to a doctor in the form of electronic data (See Background of the Invention of Kanada in Paragraph [0004].)
As per claim 17, Boland/Koblick/Kanada discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Boland further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to:
display the second state assessment index in a first specific state in which a first state assessment index takes a predetermined value on a display;
display a difference value between the first state assessment index and the second state assessment index in the first specific state on the display (See Paragraphs [0247]-[0248]: Detecting a deviation in the patient's health/activity information from the patient's prescribed PCP, particular deviation and differences are identified, which the Examiner is interpreting patient's health/activity information to encompass the first state assessment index and the patient's prescribed PCP to encompass the second state assessment index in the first specific state);
display the first state assessment index in a second specific state in which a second state assessment index takes a predetermined value on the display; or
display a difference value between the first state assessment index and the second state assessment index in the first specific state on the display.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boland et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0181711) in view of Koblick et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0111578) in view of Kanada (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0040088) in further view of Shiu et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2011/0301978).
As per claim 3, Boland/Koblick/Kanada discloses the system of claims 1-2 as described above. Boland/Koblick/Kanada may not explicitly teach wherein if the action is an action acquired from an instruction, the processing circuitry determines that an agent of the action is a doctor who is the second user, and if the action is an action acquired from an administration order, the processing circuitry determines that an agent of the action is a patient who is the first user.
Shiu teaches a system for wherein if the action is an action acquired from an instruction, the processing circuitry determines that an agent of the action is a doctor who is the second user, and if the action is an action acquired from an administration order, the processing circuitry determines that an agent of the action is a patient who is the first user (See Paragraphs [0061]-[0063], [0094]-[0095]: An encounter or assessment of a patient's medical condition is typically assessed using the Subjective-Objective-Assessment-Plan (SOAP) method, the SOAP method identifies subjective information is usually acquired from the patient, and the objective information is acquired from a medical professional, which the Examiner is interpreting the SOAP method is able to identify the difference between instruction and administration information.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Boland/Koblick/Kanada to include if the action is an action acquired from an instruction, the processing circuitry determines that an agent of the action is a doctor who is the second user, and if the action is an action acquired from an administration order, the processing circuitry determines that an agent of the action is a patient who is the first user as taught by Shiu. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Boland/Koblick/Kanada with Shiu with the motivation of improve convenience of managing patient medical information (See Detailed Description of Shiu in Paragraph [0023]).
As per claim 4, Boland/Koblick/Kanada discloses the system of claims 1-2 as described above. Boland/Koblick/Kanada may not explicitly teach wherein if the action is an action acquired from the “P” section of a SOAP note, the processing circuitry determines that an agent of the action is a doctor who is the second user, and if the action is an action acquired from the “S” section of a SOAP note, the processing circuitry determines that an agent of the action is a patient who is the first user,
the patient’s subjective information is recorded in the “S” section of the SOAP note,
the patient’s subjective information is recorded in the “O” section of the SOAP note,
an assessment is recorded in the “A” section of the SOAP note, and
an action taken by a healthcare worker is recorded in the “P” section of the SOAP note.
Shiu teaches a system wherein if the action is an action acquired from the “P” section of a SOAP note, the processing circuitry determines that an agent of the action is a doctor who is the second user, and if the action is an action acquired from the “S” section of a SOAP note, the processing circuitry determines that an agent of the action is a patient who is the first user,
the patient’s subjective information is recorded in the “S” section of the SOAP note,
the patient’s subjective information is recorded in the “O” section of the SOAP note,
an assessment is recorded in the “A” section of the SOAP note, and
an action taken by a healthcare worker is recorded in the “P” section of the SOAP note (See Paragraphs [0061]-[0063], [0094]-[0095]: An encounter or assessment of a patient's medical condition is typically assessed using the Subjective-Objective-Assessment-Plan (SOAP) method, the SOAP method identifies subjective information is usually acquired from the patient, and the plan information is acquired from a medical professional, which the Examiner is interpreting the SOAP method is able to identify the difference between "S" and "P" information.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Boland/Koblick/Kanada to include wherein if the action is an action acquired from the “P” section of a SOAP note, the processing circuitry determines that an agent of the action is a doctor who is the second user, and if the action is an action acquired from the “S” section of a SOAP note, the processing circuitry determines that an agent of the action is a patient who is the first user, the patient’s subjective information is recorded in the “S” section of the SOAP note, the patient’s subjective information is recorded in the “O” section of the SOAP note, an assessment is recorded in the “A” section of the SOAP note, and an action taken by a healthcare worker is recorded in the “P” section of the SOAP note as taught by Shiu. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Boland/Koblick/Kanada with Shiu with the motivation of improve convenience of managing patient medical information (See Detailed Description of Shiu in Paragraph [0023]).
As per claim 5, Boland/Koblick/Kanada discloses the system of claims 1-2 as described above. Boland/Koblick/Kanada may not explicitly teach wherein if the action is an action acquired from a predetermined item included in an order, the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether the agent of the action is a doctor who is the second user or a patient who is the first user in accordance with an identifier assigned to the predetermined item.
Shiu teaches a system wherein if the action is an action acquired from a predetermined item included in an order, the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether the agent of the action is a doctor who is the second user or a patient who is the first user in accordance with an identifier assigned to the predetermined item (See Paragraphs [0061]-[0063], [0094]-[0095]: The assessment record can correspond to a specific patient (patient identifier) and the patient information record can include a medical doctor identifier, an assessment may also correspond with one or more prescription records and a prescription record identifier links the assessment records to the corresponding prescription record(s), which the Examiner is interpreting the medical doctor identifier with a prescription record identifier to encompass an action acquired from a predetermined item included in an order as the doctor would prescribe a known prescription, and the patient identifier linked to the patient information record to encompass a patient who is the first user in accordance with an identifier assigned to the predetermined item.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Boland/Koblick/Kanada to include if the action is an action acquired from a predetermined item included in an order, the processing circuitry is configured to determine whether the agent of the action is a doctor who is the second user or a patient who is the first user in accordance with an identifier assigned to the predetermined item as taught by Shiu. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Boland/Koblick/Kanada with Shiu with the motivation of improve convenience of managing patient medical information (See Detailed Description of Shiu in Paragraph [0023]).
Claims 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boland et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0181711) in view of Koblick et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0111578) in view of Kanada (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/0040088) in further view of Mei et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2019/0065687).
As per claim 16, Boland/Koblick/Kanada discloses the system of claims 1 and 13 as described above. Boland/Koblick/Kanada may not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: calculate a candidate of a recommended action for making the difference value smaller by reinforcement learning based on the state and actions; and display the candidate on the display.
Mei teaches a system wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: calculate a candidate of a recommended action for making the difference value smaller by reinforcement learning based on the state and actions (See Paragraphs [0045]-[0046]: The RL optimization function may be used to recommend optimal treatments actions for the patient that take into account long term goals or outcomes based any state of the patient); and display the candidate on the display (See Paragraphs [0045]-[0046]: The patient may be provided with treatments based on the optimum recommended treatment actions and resulting simulated states where, for example, a future simulated state aligns with a long-term goal of the patient's care.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Boland/Koblick/Kanada to include calculate a candidate of a recommended action for making the difference value smaller by reinforcement learning based on the state and actions; and display the candidate on the display as taught by Mei. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Boland/Koblick/Kanada with Mei with the motivation of improve clinical decision (See Background of Mei in Paragraphs [0001]-0002].)
As per claim 21, Boland/Koblick/Kanada discloses the system of claim 1 as described above. Boland further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: determine a difference value between the first state assessment index and the second state assessment index (See Paragraphs [0250]-[0253]: Determining at least one communication to output comprises determining a difference between the desired pattern data and the at least one pattern of dynamic patient monitoring data, and determining a communication to be output to the patient that is directed to minimizing the difference between the desired pattern data and the at least one pattern of dynamic patient monitoring data, which the Examiner is interpreting output comprises determining a difference between the desired pattern data and the at least one pattern of dynamic patient monitoring data to encompass a difference value between the first state assessment index and the second state assessment index.)
While Boland discloses the system wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: determine a difference value between the first state assessment index and the second state assessment index, Boland/Koblick/Kanada may not explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: generate a trained model trained to input the difference value and the first user's state of a step targeted for processing and output a recommended action candidate for reducing the difference value.
Mei teaches a system wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: generate a trained model trained to input the difference value and the first user's state of a step targeted for processing and output a recommended action candidate for reducing the difference value (See Paragraphs [0048]-[0049]: RNN learner is a training model for training the RNN-based state simulator, which the Examiner is interpreting the RNN learner to encompass a trained model, and the patient data stored in patient database to encompass the difference value and the first user’s state of a step when combined with Boland/Koblick/Kanada.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the system of Boland/Koblick/Kanada to include generate a trained model trained to input the difference value and the first user's state of a step targeted for processing and output a recommended action candidate for reducing the difference value as taught by Mei. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Boland/Koblick/Kanada with Mei with the motivation of improve clinical decision (See Background of Mei in Paragraphs [0001]-[0002].)
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed on October 27, 2025, the Applicant argues that the newly amended and/or added claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s). The Examiner does not acknowledge that the newly added and/or amended claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s).
The Applicant argues that:
(1) claims l and 19 are amended to recite an ordered combination including a storage apparatus storing an administrative order with information in chronological order. Also included is processing circuitry configured to applying processing to the information to create time series data and distributions of state assessment indices. Claim 1 recites an improved functioning of the apparatus for generating state assessments by creating time series data on the state from the records in the database and applying unique processing. A plane is automatically designated having two of the state types as the state space, and the first distribution and the second distribution are displayed in the designated plane. This represents a technical improvement by avoiding attempting to generate a display or a state assessment in a dimension space with 3 or more dimensions, which is difficult to display. Higher priority states can be preferentially displayed through designation in a single display plane. Referring to MPEP 2106.05(f), a description of "how" a solution to a problem is accomplished can be seen as evidence of integration into a practical application. The apparatus of Claim 1 provides an explanation of the "how," designating a plane with two state types to more easily and efficiently process the information to generate the display of the distributions. It is respectfully submitted that Claim 1 is integrated into a practical application of improved functioning to process state information and produce displays of distributions of the state assessment indices. Claim 1 recites eligible subject matter. Claim 19 also recites an apparatus with the improved processing circuitry in Claim 1. Claim 19 also recites eligible subject matter. Claim 20 recites including automatically designating a plane having two of the state types as the state space, and display the first distribution and the second distribution in the designated plane. Claim 20 is believed to be integrated into a practical application. Claim 20 is also believed to recite eligible subject matter;
(2) as a comparison to understand the difference between Kanada and the present invention, Applicant refers the Examiner to Fig. 10 of the present application. Kanada only shows the value of the state. Fig. l0 shows a patient state assessment index and a doctor state assessment index which represent distributions of state assessment indices in a state space defined by the first and second spaces. The first distribution of the first state assessment index in a state space is defined by the plurality of state types and a second distribution of the second state assessment index in a state space is defined by the plurality of state types. The first and second distributions are displayed. Kanada does not generate or display the first and second distributions. Fig. 13 shows changes in states, and not distributions calculated from the states. Claim l is patentable over Boland, Koblick and Kanada. Claim 19 recites the storage apparatus and processing circuitry configured to calculate the first and second state assessment of Claim 1 is and is patentable over Boland and Mei for the reasons set forth above for Claim 1.
In response to argument (1), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the additional elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract idea along with generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, and insignificant, extra-solution activity. The Examiner does not acknowledge that amended claim 1 recites an improvement to a technology or technical field, as the Applicant’s amended claims are similar to “iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48” (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)), which the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The Examiner does not acknowledge that amended claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 19-20 are similarly rejected. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (2), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that Koblick when combined with Boland encompasses the newly amended claimed portions of independent claims 1, and 19-20 as described above in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s). The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bennett S Erickson whose telephone number is (571)270-3690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bennett Stephen Erickson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683