DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This office action is in response to the claims filed January 09, 2026.
Claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18 are pending.
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 .
Request for Continued Examination
Claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18 remain pending and have overcome the 112(a) rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18 are rejected to under 35 U.S.C 101 as not being directed to eligible subject matter based on the grounds set out in detail below:
Independent Claims 1, 13, and 14:
Eligibility Step 1 (does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?):
Independent Claim 1 falls within the statutory category of machine
Independent Claim 13 falls within the statutory category of method
Independent Claim 14 falls within the statutory category of article of manufacture
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?): Independent claims 1, 13, and 14 (Claim 1 being representative) claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim elements which set forth the abstract idea in claim 1, 13, and 14 are (Claim 1 being representative):
Measure vital information measured over time from a user
Acquires the vital information
derives a degree of a risk of aggravation of a disease on the basis of an abnormal tendency that appears instantaneously in the vital information, the abnormal tendency appearing in response to underlying diseases that are different from the disease and that influence the risk of aggravation of the disease
And in a case where there is insufficient vital information for deriving the degree of the risk of aggravation, a method of measuring the insufficient vital information
And a period during which the vital information should have been acquired as the method of measuring the insufficient vital information
And wherein the period is shown that indicates a change of the vital information over time, in a manner visually distinguishable from another period.
This abstract idea in both claims 1, 13, and 14 is merely making an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion on a risk of aggravation of a disease based on data and if data is insufficient making a decision on another way to measure. This falls within “mental processes”. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): For Independent claim 1, 13, and 14 judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 recites the additional claim elements below:
a measurement device that includes a sensor
An information processing device with a processor within an information processing system
A display with a screen
Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole.
Within the noted above additional claim element, An information processing device with a processor within an information processing system, is performing the abstract idea and is a computer product positively recited with a high level of generality used as a tool to implement the abstract idea and therefore “apply-it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
Within the noted above additional claim element, a measurement device that includes a sensor, is used as a tool to gather data and therefore “apply-it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
Within the noted above additional claim element, a display with a screen, is used as a tool to output data and therefore “apply-it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
Independent claim 13 recites no additional elements not already recited in the independent claim 1 and purely recites the abstract idea.
Independent claim 14 recite the additional elements below not already recited in independent claim 1:
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program on a computer
Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole.
Within the noted above additional claim element, A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program on a computer, is performing the abstract idea and is a computer product positively recited with a high level of generality used as a tool to implement the abstract idea and therefore “apply-it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?): The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer elements as analyzed above in step 2A prong 2, are merely applying the abstract idea with general processing device ([0055]- disclosed in instant applications specification) therefore insufficient to amount to significantly more. The claims are patent ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-5, 7-12, 15-16, and 18:
Eligibility Step 1 (does the subject matter fall within a statutory category?):
The dependent claims 2-5, 7-12, 15-16, and 18 fall within the statutory category of machine.
Eligibility Step 2A-1 (does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?): Dependent claims 2-5, 7-12, 15-16, and 18 claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims continue to limit the independent claim 1 abstract idea by (1) further limiting the types of data gathered and presented, (2) further limiting the disease type. Therefore, the dependent claims inherit the same abstract idea which is merely making an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion on a risk of aggravation of a disease based on data and if data is insufficient making a decision on another way to measure. This falls within “mental processes”. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Eligibility Step 2A-2 (does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?): For claims 2-5, 7-12, 15-16, and 18 this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims recite the additional claim elements below not previously cited in the independent claims:
A device
A measurement device
Examiner takes the applicable considerations stated in MPEP 2106.04 (d) and analyzes them below in light of the instant applications disclosure and claim elements as a whole.
The noted above additional claim element, a device, is positively recited with a high level of generality to only receive data and thus merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea and thus “apply-it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
The noted above additional claim element, a measurement device, is positively recited with a high level of generality to gather data and thus merely used as a tool to implement the abstract idea and thus “apply-it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
Accordingly, the dependent claims as a whole do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.04(d)(1)).
Eligibility Step 2B (Does the claim amount to significantly more?): The dependent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements as analyzed above in step 2A prong 2, are merely applying the abstract idea and therefore insufficient to amount to significantly more. The claims are patent ineligible.
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 18 are rejected to under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJITA et. al (hereinafter FUJITA) (US20220130556A1) in view of SAKANO et. al (hereinafter SAKANO) (JP2018033660A) and in further view of Hame et. al (hereinafter Hame) (US20220059238A1)
As per claim 1, FUJITA teaches:
An information processing system (see Fig. 1, 100 and abstract discloses, “A health management apparatus according to an embodiment is provided with processing circuitry” / processing circuitry is interpreted by examiner as having embodying a processor), comprising: a measurement device that includes a sensor ([0029] discloses, “In addition , the position information includes , for example , GPS information of the wearable terminal 201.”)and that measures vital information over time from a user; ([0027] discloses, “The wearable terminal 201 is a measuring instrument that can be attached to the body of the patient P and measures vital data of the patient .”) and an information processing device including at least one processor ([0020] discloses, “In addition , the mobile terminal 200 is , for example , a computer such as a tablet terminal , a smartphone , or a PC . The mobile terminal 200 is an example of a terminal in the present embodiment.”) wherein the processor acquires the vital information measured over time from the measurement device, ([0051] discloses, “The processing circuit 150 is processing circuitry that realizes a function corresponding to each computer program by reading out a computer program from the storage 120 and executing the computer program . The processing circuit 150 of the present embodiment is provided with an acquisition function 151” and [0054] discloses, “The acquisition function 151 acquires the vital data and the activity history information of the subject.” And [0028] discloses, “Examples of the vital data of the patient P measured by the wearable terminal 201 include body temperature , blood pressure , pulse , oxygen saturation in blood , sleep time , and the like.” And see [0030] discloses, “The wearable terminal 201 transmits the measured vital data and the information on the activities of the patient P to the mobile terminal 200.” And see [0031] discloses, “Returning to FIG . 1 , the mobile terminal 200 is provided with a network ( NW ) interface 210 , a storage 220 , an input interface 230 , a display 240 , and a processing circuit 250. The NW interface 210 is connected to the processing circuit 250 and controls the transmission and communication of various types of data performed between the health management apparatus 100 and the mobile terminal 200.”) derives a degree of a risk of aggravation of a disease ([0111] discloses, “…. estimates a risk of aggravation of each disease candidate based on the estimated disease candidates , the vital data of the subject…[…]….”
on the basis of an abnormal tendency that appears instantaneously in the vital information, the abnormal tendency appearing in response to underlying diseases that are different from the disease and that influence the risk of aggravation of the disease, ([0025]-[0027] and see [0063] discloses, “FIG . 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of disease - specific scoring according to the first embodiment . As illustrated in FIG . 3 , the estimation function 152 indi cates a degree of a possibility that the patient Pis contracting each disease as numerical values of “ O ” to “ 10 ” with respect to each item included in the vital data and activity history information of the patient P. For example , in an example illustrated in FIG . 3 , a score indicating a degree of a relation between maximum and minimum blood pressure values of the patient P and “ thyroid disorder ” is “ 6 ” . The estimation function 152 calculates a total value of the scores for each disease . In a case where the total value of the disease scores is equal to or greater than a defined threshold value , the estimation function 152 estimates the disease as a disease candidate that the patient P may contract a disease.” And see [0064] discloses, “In FIG . 3 , the estimation function 152 calculates two types of a total score based only on the vital data and a total score based on the vital data and the activity history information , but may calculate only the total score based on the vital data and the activity history information.” And see [0065] discloses, “The total value of the scores for each disease indicates the possibility that the patient P is contracting the disease . In the present embodiment , the information indicating the degree of the possibility that the patient P is contracting each disease , such as the total value of the scores for each disease illustrated in FIG . 3 , is referred to as information on a risk of contracting a disease” / examiner notes the art teaches real time vital information to rank diseases in an simultaneously therefore any abnormal tendency is seen across diseases)
displays, in a case where there is insufficient vital information for deriving the degree of the risk of aggravation ([0111] discloses, “…. estimates a risk of aggravation of each disease candidate based on the estimated disease candidates , the vital data of the subject…[…]….”),…[…]…
FUJITA does not teach the underlined portions:
displays, in a case where there is insufficient vital information for deriving the degree of the risk of aggravation, a method of measuring the insufficient vital information on a display and displays, on the display, a period during which the vital information should have been acquired as the method of measuring the insufficient vital information, and wherein the period is shown on a screen that indicates a change of the vital information over time, in a manner visually distinguishable from another period.
However, SAKANO does teach the below underlined portion:
displays, in a case where there is insufficient vital information for deriving the degree of the risk of aggravation, a method of measuring the insufficient vital information on a display and displays, on the display, a period during which the vital information should have been acquired as the method of measuring the insufficient vital information, and wherein the period is shown on a screen that indicates a change of the vital information over time, in a manner visually distinguishable from another period. ([0034] discloses, “On the other hand, in the case where the information of the health management information and the vital data is insufficient and the user cannot decide the destination hospital by the automatic triage processing, a question for confirming the user's symptom via the user terminal 200 And waits for receipt of answer data from the user terminal 200 to execute an interview triage process to determine a destination hospital according to the user's symptoms.” And see [0094] discloses, “In the user terminal 200, upon receiving the information for specifying the destination hospital from the monitoring device 300, the control device 204 outputs and displays the received information to the touch panel 201. Thus, a person who transports a user such as an ambulance personnel to a hospital can confirm the information displayed on the touch panel 201 of the user terminal 200 and can grasp the hospital to which the user is to be carried.” And see “[0113] On the other hand, if the determination in step S 730 is negative, the process proceeds to step S 750, the control device 302 obtains answer data for the question items (B 1) to (B 12) from the user terminal 200 as described above, The result of the answer is converted into a numerical value, and the sum of these values is calculated as a score for judging the destination corresponding to the degree of symptoms of the user. Thereafter, the process proceeds to step S 760.” And see [0117] According to the present embodiment described above, the following operational effects can be obtained. (1) In the user terminal 200 possessed by the user who is the subject person, the control device 204 acquires vital data including the user's blood pressure data, pulse data and electrocardiogram data from the vital data measuring device 100, and acquires the acquired vital data And transmits the data to the monitoring device 300. In the monitoring apparatus 300, the control device 302 detects an abnormality of the user when it is determined based on the vital data received from the user terminal 200 that there is a possibility that the subject has developed a heart disease or a brain disease, When the abnormality of the user is detected, the above-described triage process is executed to specify the destination hospital to which the user is to be conveyed based on the degree of the user's symptoms, and the specified result is transmitted to the user terminal 200 . Thus, when there is a possibility that the user has developed a heart disease or a brain disease, it is possible to determine the extent of symptoms of the user by executing triage treatment and to specify the destination hospital according to the degree of the symptom it can. In this way, when the subject develops a heart disease or a brain disease, it is possible to promptly convey to the appropriate hospital by specifying the destination hospital according to the degree of the symptom of the user at an early stage Therefore, it is possible to improve the life-saving rate of the user.” / examiner notes that the disclosed process is used to send the patient to be triaged at an appropriate destination if vitals are insufficient and triage includes measuring vital data)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine FUJITA’s teachings of gathering vital information and deriving a degree of aggravation of risk of a disease as cited above with SAKANO’s teachings of giving a method to find insufficient vital information to derive the aggravation risk, the motivation being that FUJITA teaches in [0156] that the interview function automatically determines interview items for improving the accuracy of the diagnosis of the infectious illness in a case where the infection risk of the infectious illness is equal to or higher that defined criteria. For example , in a case where the infection risk of the infectious illness is high , the interview processing function 154 causes inquiries regarding the presence or absence of symptoms of the infectious illness with which the subject may be infected , for example , a respiratory symptom , and a degree thereof to be included in the interview items. By combining with SAKANO’s teachings of a method to find insufficient vital information it would improve the efficiency and the accuracy of the ability to derive the degree of aggravation of risk of a disease with no unpredictable results as they both use general computer elements.
SAKANO also does not teach the underlined portions:
displays, in a case where there is insufficient vital information for deriving the degree of the risk of aggravation, a method of measuring the insufficient vital information on a display and displays, on the display, a period during which the vital information should have been acquired as the method of measuring the insufficient vital information, and wherein the period is shown on a screen that indicates a change of the vital information over time, in a manner visually distinguishable from another period.
However, Hame does teach:
displays, in a case where there is insufficient vital information for deriving the degree of the risk of aggravation, a method of measuring the insufficient vital information on a display and displays, on the display, a period during which the vital information should have been acquired as the method of measuring the insufficient vital information, and wherein the period is shown on a screen that indicates a change of the vital information over time, in a manner visually distinguishable from another period. ([0127] discloses, “In some examples , the method 800 can include identifying one or more missing features with a data unavailability rank above a first threshold value . The method 800 can also include requesting to obtain or receive one or more missing feature values for an input data stream with the data unavailability rank above a threshold value . For example , the method 800 can include identifying that two features for a heart rate input data stream are unavailable and additional data values for the heart rate input data can be requested or obtained to enable the calculation of the two missing features . In some examples , the additional data values for missing features can be requested if the missing features have a data unavailability rank above a threshold value . The method 800 can also include calculating an estimate of improvement in the data quality index following the addition of an unavailable input data stream . For example , adding , obtaining , or otherwise receiving an input data stream can result in a data quality index value that corresponds to a more reliable patient score.” and see [0139] discloses, “In some examples , the method 900 can also include outputting a patient score , the data quality index , a recommendation to obtain missing input data streams or missing features , or a combination thereof . For example , the data quality index can be output to any suitable display device associated with a patient , such as a care provider device , a hospital monitor , or the like . In some examples , an interface that includes the recommendation to obtain missing input data streams or missing features can be output to display devices associated with a patient .For example , an interface can display the data quality index and the recommendation for missing input data streams or features along with vital data , laboratory data , patient characteristics , or a combination thereof . In some examples , a first interface can display the data quality index and a link to a second interface that provides the recommendation for obtaining missing input data streams , missing features , or a combination thereof” and see [0105] discloses, “In some examples , the request is received with a VHA ( such as the EMR VHA , in examples where multiple VHAs are available ) , which can provide , obtain , or generate one or more graphs that include plots of heart rate , blood pressure , and oxygen saturation for a patient within a period of time . As another example , user input may include a request to view information associated with a data quality index , such as temperature , heart rate , blood pressure, and the like.” And see [0119] and see [0098] and see [0124]-[0126] and see[0131] and [0136] and see Fig. 2 and Fig. 7-8 / examiner notes the prior art teaches a vital signs interface which displays vital signs over time and can display missing inputs to this vital signs information where the dashboards show graphs as in the figures disclosed of vital sign periods which vary over time furthermore the request to gather unavailable data is also shown on the display as disclosed. )
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine FUJITA’s teachings of gathering vital information and deriving a degree of aggravation of risk of a disease as cited above and SAKANO’s teachings of giving a method to find insufficient vital information to derive the aggravation risk with Hames teachings of displaying missing vital sign information taken over a known time period, the motivation being that FUJITA teaches in [0156] that the interview function automatically determines interview items for improving the accuracy of the diagnosis of the infectious illness in a case where the infection risk of the infectious illness is equal to or higher that defined criteria. For example , in a case where the infection risk of the infectious illness is high , the interview processing function 154 causes inquiries regarding the presence or absence of symptoms of the infectious illness with which the subject may be infected , for example , a respiratory symptom , and a degree thereof to be included in the interview items. By combining with SAKANO’s teachings of a method to find insufficient vital information and Hames teaching of displaying this missing information over a time period it would improve the efficiency and the accuracy of the ability to derive the degree of aggravation of risk of a disease with no unpredictable results as they both use general computer elements.
As per claim 2, FUJITA teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the disease is an infectious disease, and the user is a person who is tested for the infectious disease and who has a positive test result. (“[ 0145 ] Therefore , the estimation function 152 estimates a degree of a possibility that the patient P1 contracts the infectious illness , that is a degree of an infection risk based on vital data and activity history information of the patient P1 and information on a disease of the third party . For example , the estimation function 152 estimates whether or not the patient P1 is in close contact with the patient P2 , or a length of the contact time between the patient P1 and the patient P2 based on past position information of the patient P1 and past position information of the other patient P2 who has contracted the infectious illness , and estimates a possibility that the patient P1 is contracting the infectious illness based on a lower order estimation result .” / examiner interprets P2 patient as testing positive for the infectious disease as the disclosed art teaches P2 has contracted the illness)
As per claim 3, FUJITA teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor acquires attribute information indicating an attribute of the user, ([0054] discloses, “The acquisition function 151 acquires the vital data and the activity history information of the subject . In addition , the acquisition function 151 acquires the attribute information of the patient P.”) and derives the degree of the risk of aggravation on the basis of the vital information and the attribute information. ([0111] discloses, “……estimates a risk of aggravation of each disease candidate based on the estimated disease candidates , the vital data of the subject , the activity history information of the subject , and the attribute information of the subject .”)
As per claim 4, FUJITA teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the attribute information indicates at least one of age, sex, or anamnesis of the user. ([0058] discloses, “The attribute information of the patient P is , for example , the age , gender , height ,weight of the patient , and the like.”)
As per claim 5, FUJITA teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor acquires a plurality of different types of vital information measured from the user ([0028] discloses, “Examples of the vital data of the patient P measured by the wearable terminal 201 include body temperature , blood pressure , pulse , oxygen saturation in blood , sleep time , and the like.”), and derives the degree of the risk of aggravation on the basis of the plurality of types of vital information. ([0111] discloses, “……estimates a risk of aggravation of each disease candidate based on the estimated disease candidates , the vital data of the subject , the activity history information of the subject , and the attribute information of the subject .”)
As per claim 7, FUJITA teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor gives a notification of information regarding the user to a device, which is a device other than the information processing device and installed in a medical institution, in a case where the derived degree of the risk of aggravation is a predetermined degree or higher. ([0117] discloses, “In addition , the notification necessity determination function 153 of the present embodiment may use the risk of aggravation as a criterion for determining necessity of a notification , in addition to the same functions as those of the first embodiment . For example , the notification necessity determination function 153 may determine to require a notification in a case of a disease having a higher risk of aggravation than defined criteria among diseases included in the disease candidates.” And [0118] discloses, “In addition , the output control function 155 of the present embodiment changes contents of the notification according to the estimated degree of the risk of aggravation , in addition to the same functions as those of the first embodiment . For example , the output control function 155 transmits the contents of the notification and a control signal to the mobile terminal 200 so as to output a message having a higher degree of warning as the risk of aggravation increases. In addition , in a case where the risk of aggravation is equal to or higher than the defined criteria , the contents of the notification may be contents in which immediate consultation with a medical institution is recommended . In addition , in a case where the risk of aggravation is lower than the defined criteria , the contents of the notification may be contents in which symptomatic treatment is recommended . Alternatively , the output control function 155 may cause the estimated degree of the risk of aggravation to be included in the contents of the notification.” and [0174] discloses, “In the above described first to fifth embodiments , the interview screen is displayed on the mobile terminal 200 held by the subject , but the interview screen may be displayed on a terminal used by a doctor” and [0178] discloses, “For example , in the example illustrated in FIG . 10 , the health management apparatus 100 and the interview terminal 500 are provided in , for example , the medical institution 3.” And [0080] discloses, “The output control function 155 causes the display 240 of the mobile terminal 200 to display an interview screen including the notification or the interview items by transmitting , for example , the contents of the notification or the interview items and a control signal to the mobile terminal 200.” / examiner notes as disclosed mobile terminal 200 shows the notification which is a device other than device, 100 and the mobile terminal 200 may be on a terminal used by a doctor such as interview terminal 500 which is installed in the medical institution)
As per claim 8, FUJITA teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor presents a preventive measure for the disease. ([0118] discloses, “In addition , in a case where the risk of aggravation is equal to or higher than the defined criteria , the contents of the notification may be contents in which immediate consultation with a medical institution is recommended . In addition , in a case where the risk of aggravation is lower than the defined criteria , the contents of the notification may be contents in which symptomatic treatment is recommended.”)
As per claim 10, FUJITA teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 8, wherein the preventive measure for the disease depends on a magnitude of the degree of the risk of aggravation derived by the processor. ([0118] discloses, “In addition , in a case where the risk of aggravation is equal to or higher than the defined criteria , the contents of the notification may be contents in which immediate consultation with a medical institution is recommended . In addition , in a case where the risk of aggravation is lower than the defined criteria , the contents of the notification may be contents in which symptomatic treatment is recommended.”)
As per claim 12, FUJITA teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the vital information indicates at least one of a blood glucose level, a blood glucose equivalent level, an electrocardiogram, an arterial blood oxygen saturation, or a blood pressure. ([0028] discloses, “Examples of the vital data of the patient P measured by the wearable terminal 201 include body temperature , blood pressure , pulse , oxygen saturation in blood , sleep time , and the like.”)
As per claim 13, it is a method claim which repeats the same limitations of claim 1, the corresponding system claim, as a series of process steps as opposed to a collection of elements. Since the teaching and motivations to combine of FUJITA, SANAKO, and Hame disclose the structural elements that constitute the system of claim 1, it is respectfully submitted that they perform the underlying process steps, as well. As such, the limitations of claim 13 are rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 1.
As per claim 14 it is an article of manufacture claim which repeats the same limitations of claim 1, the corresponding system claim, as a collection of executable instructions stored on machine readable media as opposed to a collection of elements. Since the teachings of FUJITA, SANAKO, and Hame and motivations to combine disclose the underlying collection of elements that constitute claim 1 it is respectfully submitted that they likewise disclose the executable instructions that perform the steps as well as cited below. As such, the limitations of claim 14 are rejected for the same reasons given above for claim 1.
As per claim 16, FUJITA further teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the abnormal tendency appears instantaneously and at an unpredictable timing in the vital information that is basically normal, and wherein the processor is configured to detect the abnormal tendency by monitoring the vital information from the measurement device. ([0067] discloses, “In addition , as another example , the estimation function 152 may determine that in a case where an altitude of a current position of the patient P is equal to or higher than a threshold value , and a pulse is equal to or greater than a threshold value or blood oxygen saturation is equal to or lower than a threshold value , the patient P is contracting a disease called “ altitude sickness ” . In this case , since the altitude of the current position of the patient P is a condition , the estimation function 152 determines that in a case where the altitude of the current position of the patient P is not equal to or higher than the threshold value , the possibility of “ altitude sickness " is low even though the pulse or blood oxygen saturation is the same as the above case.” And see And [0028] discloses, “Examples of the vital data of the patient P measured by the wearable terminal 201 include body temperature , blood pressure , pulse , oxygen saturation in blood , sleep time , and the like.” And see [0030] discloses, “The wearable terminal 201 transmits the measured vital data and the information on the activities of the patient P to the mobile terminal 200.” And see [0031] discloses, “Returning to FIG . 1 , the mobile terminal 200 is provided with a network ( NW ) interface 210 , a storage 220 , an input interface 230 , a display 240 , and a processing circuit 250. The NW interface 210 is connected to the processing circuit 250 and controls the transmission and communication of various types of data performed between the health management apparatus 100 and the mobile terminal 200.” / examiner interprets the blood oxygen level example disclosed as being equal to or lower than a threshold value as an instantaneous abnormal tendency of the vital sign information leading to the estimation of the risk as the instant application defines instantaneous abnormal tendency in paragraphs [0032]-[0034] of the specification as e.g. spike in blood glucose. Furthermore, in light of the 112(a) the examiner under BRI interprets something that the abnormality found at an “unpredictable timing” in vital sign information that is “basically” normal as any instantaneous change such as blood oxygen level due to altitude sickness as one of ordinary skill would understand that blood oxygen may change instantaneously with altitude sickness but cannot alert a high or low threshold until it surpasses that threshold necessarily therefore unpredictable timing)
As per claim 17, FUJITA further teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the abnormal tendency relates to underlying diseases which are different from the disease, and an influence of which on the disease has not yet manifested in the user. ([0067] discloses, “In addition , as another example , the estimation function 152 may determine that in a case where an altitude of a current position of the patient P is equal to or higher than a threshold value , and a pulse is equal to or greater than a threshold value or blood oxygen saturation is equal to or lower than a threshold value , the patient P is contracting a disease called “ altitude sickness ” . In this case , since the altitude of the current position of the patient P is a condition , the estimation function 152 determines that in a case where the altitude of the current position of the patient P is not equal to or higher than the threshold value , the possibility of “ altitude sickness " is low even though the pulse or blood oxygen saturation is the same as the above case.” And see And [0028] discloses, “Examples of the vital data of the patient P measured by the wearable terminal 201 include body temperature , blood pressure , pulse , oxygen saturation in blood , sleep time , and the like.” And see [ 0068 ] discloses, “In addition , the estimation function 152 may further estimate the disease candidate of the subject based on the attribute information of the patient P in addition to the vital data and the activity history information . For example , the estimation function 152 may estimate such that the degree of the probability that the patient P is contracting the disease “ heat stroke ” differs depending on the age of the patient P even thou h the same room temperature of the room 41 is applied.” And see [0063] discloses, “FIG . 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of disease - specific scoring according to the first embodiment . As illustrated in FIG . 3 , the estimation function 152 indi cates a degree of a possibility that the patient Pis contracting each disease as numerical values of “ O ” to “ 10 ” with respect to each item included in the vital data and activity history information of the patient P. For example , in an example illustrated in FIG . 3 , a score indicating a degree of a relation between maximum and minimum blood pressure values of the patient P and “ thyroid disorder ” is “ 6 ” . The estimation function 152 calculates a total value of the scores for each disease . In a case where the total value of the disease scores is equal to or greater than a defined threshold value , the estimation function 152 estimates the disease as a disease candidate that the patient P may contract a disease.” / examiner notes that the disclosed art teaches that the estimation and measurement is given for various different diseases based on abnormal vital sign information e.g. given in the disclosure, thus someone of ordinary skill in the art under BRI would understand that the abnormal tendency could relate to various diseases with ranked values of likelihood which could influence the disease not yet manifested in a user as)
As per claim 18, FUJITA further teaches:
The information processing system according to The information processing system according to wherein the abnormal tendency relates to underlying diseases which are different from the disease, and an influence of which on the disease has not yet manifested in the user, wherein the abnormal tendency appears instantaneously and at an unpredictable timing in the vital information that is basically normal, and wherein the processor is configured to detect the abnormal tendency by monitoring the vital information from the measurement device. ([0067] discloses, “In addition , as another example , the estimation function 152 may determine that in a case where an altitude of a current position of the patient P is equal to or higher than a threshold value , and a pulse is equal to or greater than a threshold value or blood oxygen saturation is equal to or lower than a threshold value , the patient P is contracting a disease called “ altitude sickness ” . In this case , since the altitude of the current position of the patient P is a condition , the estimation function 152 determines that in a case where the altitude of the current position of the patient P is not equal to or higher than the threshold value , the possibility of “ altitude sickness " is low even though the pulse or blood oxygen saturation is the same as the above case.” And see And [0028] discloses, “Examples of the vital data of the patient P measured by the wearable terminal 201 include body temperature , blood pressure , pulse , oxygen saturation in blood , sleep time , and the like.” And see [ 0068 ] discloses, “In addition , the estimation function 152 may further estimate the disease candidate of the subject based on the attribute information of the patient P in addition to the vital data and the activity history information . For example , the estimation function 152 may estimate such that the degree of the probability that the patient P is contracting the disease “ heat stroke ” differs depending on the age of the patient P even thou h the same room temperature of the room 41 is applied.” And see [0063] discloses, “FIG . 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of disease - specific scoring according to the first embodiment . As illustrated in FIG . 3 , the estimation function 152 indi cates a degree of a possibility that the patient Pis contracting each disease as numerical values of “ O ” to “ 10 ” with respect to each item included in the vital data and activity history information of the patient P. For example , in an example illustrated in FIG . 3 , a score indicating a degree of a relation between maximum and minimum blood pressure values of the patient P and “ thyroid disorder ” is “ 6 ” . The estimation function 152 calculates a total value of the scores for each disease . In a case where the total value of the disease scores is equal to or greater than a defined threshold value , the estimation function 152 estimates the disease as a disease candidate that the patient P may contract a disease.” ([0067] discloses, “In addition , as another example , the estimation function 152 may determine that in a case where an altitude of a current position of the patient P is equal to or higher than a threshold value , and a pulse is equal to or greater than a threshold value or blood oxygen saturation is equal to or lower than a threshold value , the patient P is contracting a disease called “ altitude sickness ” . In this case , since the altitude of the current position of the patient P is a condition , the estimation function 152 determines that in a case where the altitude of the current position of the patient P is not equal to or higher than the threshold value , the possibility of “ altitude sickness " is low even though the pulse or blood oxygen saturation is the same as the above case.” And see And [0028] discloses, “Examples of the vital data of the patient P measured by the wearable terminal 201 include body temperature , blood pressure , pulse , oxygen saturation in blood , sleep time , and the like.” And see [0030] discloses, “The wearable terminal 201 transmits the measured vital data and the information on the activities of the patient P to the mobile terminal 200.” And see [0031] discloses, “Returning to FIG . 1 , the mobile terminal 200 is provided with a network ( NW ) interface 210 , a storage 220 , an input interface 230 , a display 240 , and a processing circuit 250. The NW interface 210 is connected to the processing circuit 250 and controls the transmission and communication of various types of data performed between the health management apparatus 100 and the mobile terminal 200.” / examiner interprets the blood oxygen level example disclosed as being equal to or lower than a threshold value as an instantaneous abnormal tendency of the vital sign information leading to the estimation of the risk as the instant application defines instantaneous abnormal tendency in paragraphs [0032]-[0034] of the specification as e.g. spike in blood glucose. Furthermore, in light of the 112(a) the examiner under BRI interprets something that the abnormality found at an “unpredictable timing” in vital sign information that is “basically” normal as any instantaneous change such as blood oxygen level due to altitude sickness as one of ordinary skill would understand that blood oxygen may change instantaneously with altitude sickness but cannot alert a high or low threshold until it surpasses that threshold necessarily therefore unpredictable timing) and examiner notes that the disclosed art teaches that the estimation and measurement is given for various different diseases based on abnormal vital sign information e.g. given in the disclosure, thus someone of ordinary skill in the art under BRI would understand that the abnormal tendency could relate to various diseases with ranked values of likelihood which could influence the disease not yet manifested in a user)
Dependent claim 9 and 11 are rejected to under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJITA et. al (hereinafter FUJITA) (US20220130556A1) in view of SAKANO et. al (hereinafter SAKANO) (JP2018033660A) in further view of Hame et. al (hereinafter Hame) (US20220059238A1) and in even further view of Jain et. al (hereinafter Jain) (US11056242B1)
As per claim 9, FUJITA teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor acquires behavior information indicating behavior of the user…[…]… (see Fig. 3 activity history which includes behavior and abstract discloses, “The processing circuitry is configured to acquire vital data and activity history information of a subject.”)
However, FUJITA and Hame do not teach the underlined portion:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor acquires behavior information indicating behavior of the user determines whether or not the user performs a preventive measure for the disease, on the basis of the behavior information, and issues a warning in a case where the processor determines that the user does not perform the preventive measure for the disease.
However, Jain does teach the underlined portions:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor acquires behavior information indicating behavior of the user determines whether or not the user performs a preventive measure for the disease, on the basis of the behavior information, and issues a warning in a case where the processor determines that the user does not perform the preventive measure for the disease. (Col. 66 lines 47-62 discloses, issuing a warning when a person takes risky behavior e.g. not wearing a mask which is interpreted as a preventative measure and suggests correction)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine FUJITA’s teachings of gathering behavior information and deriving a degree of aggravation of risk of a disease and giving a preventative measure as cited above and Hames teachings of displaying missing vital sign information taken over a known time period with Jain’s teachings of determining whether or not the measure is taken and issuing a warning if the measure is not taken, the motivation being that FUJITA teaches in [0163] that a location where the outbreak of the mass infection of the infectious illness occurs , and the health management apparatus 100 of the present embodiment estimates the degree of the infection risk of the subject according to a length of a distance from the location where the outbreak of the mass infection of the infectious illness occurs to the subject within a defined period before and after the outbreak of the mass infection. Therefore, with the health management apparatus 100 of the present embodiment , the possibility that the subject is contracting the infectious illness can be estimated with high accuracy. And in [0029] discloses gathering information such as position, temperature, etc. of the patient and [0118] discloses a warning is given as the risk increases based on this information. By combining with Jains’s teachings the efficiency, transparency, and patient outcome can be improved by issuing a warning if a preventative measure is not taken that was issued which in turn can decrease the risk of aggravation of the disease.
As per claim 11, FUJITA teaches:
The information processing system according to claim 9, wherein the preventive measure for the disease depends on a magnitude of the degree of the risk of aggravation derived by the processor. ([0118] discloses, “In addition , in a case where the risk of aggravation is equal to or higher than the defined criteria , the contents of the notification may be contents in which immediate consultation with a medical institution is recommended . In addition , in a case where the risk of aggravation is lower than the defined criteria , the contents of the notification may be contents in which symptomatic treatment is recommended.”)
Dependent claim 15 is rejected to under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FUJITA et. al (hereinafter FUJITA) (US20220130556A1) in view of SAKANO et. al (hereinafter SAKANO) (JP2018033660A) in further view of Hame et. al (hereinafter Hame) (US20220059238A1) and in even further view of Benedetto et. al (hereinafter Benedetto) (US12109024B2)
As per claim 15, FUJITA does not teach:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor displays, on the display, a message that recommends acquiring the insufficient vital information using a measurement device having higher measurement accuracy than the currently used measurement device.
However, SAKANO does teach the below underlined portion:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor displays, on the display, a message that recommends acquiring the insufficient vital information using a measurement device having higher measurement accuracy than the currently used measurement device. ([0034] discloses, “On the other hand, in the case where the information of the health management information and the vital data is insufficient and the user cannot decide the destination hospital by the automatic triage processing, a question for confirming the user's symptom via the user terminal 200 And waits for receipt of answer data from the user terminal 200 to execute an interview triage process to determine a destination hospital according to the user's symptoms.” And see [0041] discloses, “In the interview type triage processing, the control device 302 obtains answer data for the following question items (B1) to (B12) and specifies the destination hospital of the user based on the answer data. When the determination cannot be made with any of the above-described determination items (A1) to (A10) in the automatic triage processing, the control device 302 causes the user terminal 200 to display the user's symptom And instructs output of a question for confirming the question.” / examiner notes the display questions the insufficient vital information to prompt the user to acquire the symptom information)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine FUJITA’s teachings of gathering vital information and deriving a degree of aggravation of risk of a disease as cited above with SAKANO’s teachings of giving a method to find insufficient vital information to derive the aggravation risk, the motivation being that FUJITA teaches in [0156] that the interview function automatically determines interview items for improving the accuracy of the diagnosis of the infectious illness in a case where the infection risk of the infectious illness is equal to or higher that defined criteria. For example , in a case where the infection risk of the infectious illness is high , the interview processing function 154 causes inquiries regarding the presence or absence of symptoms of the infectious illness with which the subject may be infected , for example , a respiratory symptom , and a degree thereof to be included in the interview items. By combining with SAKANO’s teachings of a method to find insufficient vital information it would improve the efficiency and the accuracy of the ability to derive the degree of aggravation of risk of a disease with no unpredictable results as they both use general computer elements.
However, SAKANO and Hame also do not teach the below underlined portion:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor displays, on the display, a message that recommends acquiring the insufficient vital information using a measurement device having higher measurement accuracy than the currently used measurement device.
However, Benedetto does teach the underlined portion:
The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor displays, on the display, a message that recommends acquiring the insufficient vital information using a measurement device having higher measurement accuracy than the currently used measurement device.(Col. 18 lines 27-37 discloses, “To optimize the estimation of SpO2 on the target subjects, the initial value of SpO2 measured with the reference pulse-oximeter 100 was saved and subsequently used to offset the measurements obtained with the pulse oximetry device 10. In this way, the measurement of SpO2 performed by the reference pulse-oximeter 100 on the finger served to determine a value of a patient-specific correction which would improve the accuracy of the final measurements by compensating for patient-specific characteristics such as, for example, the different characteristics of the skin between one subject and another.”)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine FUJITA’s teachings of gathering vital information and deriving a degree of aggravation of risk of a disease as cited above and SAKANO’s teachings of giving a method to find insufficient vital information to derive the aggravation risk and Hames teachings of displaying missing vital sign information taken over a known time period with Benedetto’s teachings of using a measurement device with improved accuracy, the motivation being that FUJITA teaches estimating the degree of risk for infectious disease based on the vital sign information with accuracy as a benchmark ([0161] and SAKANO teaches calculating the degree of the users symptoms also based on the accuracy as a benchmark ([0119]), therefore it would only improve the estimations and calculations of a degree or risk of a user’s symptoms or infectious disease by ensuring the vital sign data is the most accurate it can be by utilizing a more accurate measurement device as taught in Benedetto.
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C § 101 Rejection
The applicant argues on pages 1-2 of the submitted remarks that the rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101 should be withdrawn in light of the below arguments.
Claims 1-5 and 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Examiner alleges that claims 1-5 and 7-15 are rejected because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter and is further directed to a judicial exception. This rejection is respectfully traversed. By this amendment, without conceding the propriety of the rejection, and in an effort to advance prosecution of the instant application, Applicant has amended the claims in order to more clearly recite the claimed invention. Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention makes the remarkable technical contribution of enabling appropriate prevention of disease aggravation even for users who are not aware of underlying diseases, by utilizing an abnormal tendency appearing in response to the underlying diseases. Therefore, the above-mentioned remarkable technical contribution corresponds to an inventive concept, which renders amended claims 1, 13, and 14, as a whole, as amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception, as affirmed by the holding in Contour IP Holding LLP v. GoPro, Inc., (Fed. Cir., 2024)
Therefore, at least the for the above reasons, Applicant respectfully submit that the claims comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, reconsideration and withdrawal of this rejection are respectfully requested.
Examiner appreciates applicants arguments but does not find them persuasive. The MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. A discussion of concepts performed in the human mind, as well as concepts that cannot practically be performed in the human mind and thus are not "mental processes”. The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Mental processes performed by humans with the assistance of physical aids such as pens or paper. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
MPEP 2106.05(a) states the abstract idea cannot provide the improvement but rather the additional elements must provide the improvement. It also recites. “It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer).” Therefore, examiner notes the amended claim limitations argued are abstract and thus cannot bring forth the improvement even with the recitation of a processor performing the steps.
The MPEP 2106.05(a) also recites, “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016). After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100. An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107.
Examiner notes that the approach to the claim under broadest reasonable interpretation must take the substance of the positive recitation of the claim without reading the specification into the claims but in light of the specification. The examiner is required to identify the elements within the claims which are abstract and identify the additional elements of the claim which examiner did so, therefore it was not a conclusory statement in the action but rather a clear record of what elements are abstract idea and what elements are additional. The abstract idea is reasonably interpreted to be making an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion on a risk of aggravation of a disease based on data and if data is insufficient making a decision on another method to measure. This falls within “mental processes”. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III).
Examiner notes that the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. the claims are confined to execution by a general purpose computer processor (see the instant applications specification para. [0055]) and the additional elements such as for example the measurement device are applied to gather data. The claimed invention is using the computer as a tool to analyze the data thus the computer is aiding the human in reviewing data to make some decision based on vital sign changes over time and it is not would a human but could a human review vital sign information over time and make a decision on another way to measure or next steps forward and the examiner maintains that the answer to this is yes as this is a practice doctors have done for decades prior to technological advances with the aid of pen and paper and computers even for more complex cases. This same logic is applied to whether an underlying disease has any effect on future disease states and any improvement present is an improvement to the abstract idea of making an observation, evaluation, or judgement based on data on what additional information is needed and how to measure or or what risks of aggravation there may be for a disease. Additionally, the use of a computer to more efficiently execute something does not preclude the claim from reciting an abstract idea in this case and apply it thus not integrated into a practical application or significantly more. Finally. There is no nexus between the instant application and Contour IP Holding LLP v. GoPro, Inc., (Fed. Cir., 2024) as the latter was confined to the technological improvement related to video streams in which the claims were confined not further improvement to the abstract idea as the instant application recites.
Therefore, examiner must maintain the 35 U.S.C § 101 rejection.
Response to Arguments Regarding 35 U.S.C § 103 Rejections
Applicant argues on pages 2-4 of the remarks for claims rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103 should be withdrawn in light of the below arguments. Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10, 12-14, and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0130556; hereinafter "Fujita") in view of Sakano et al. (JP2018033660A; hereinafter "Sakano"), and in further view of Hame et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0059238; hereinafter "Hame").
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Sakano, and in further view of Hame and Jain et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,056,242; hereinafter "Jain"). Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita in view of Sakano, and in further view of Hame and Benedetto et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,109,024; hereinafter "Benedetto"). These rejections are respectfully traversed. Complete discussions of the Examiner's rejections are set forth in the Office Action, and are not being repeated here.
By this amendment, without conceding the propriety of the rejection, and in an effort to advance prosecution of the instant application, Applicant has amended claim 1 in order to more clearly recite the claimed invention. Applicant's amended claim 1 recites as follows: 1. An information processing system comprising: a measurement device that includes a sensor and that measures vital information over time from a user; and an information processing device including at least one processor, wherein the processor acquires the vital information from the measurement device, derives a degree of a risk of aggravation of a disease on the basis of an abnormal tendency that appears instantaneously in the vital information, the abnormal tendency appearing in response to underlying diseases that are different from the disease and that influence the risk of aggravation of the disease, displays, in a case where there is insufficient vital information for deriving the degree of the risk of aggravation, a method of measuring the insufficient vital information on a display, and displays, on the display, a period during which the vital information have been acquired as the method of measuring the insufficient vital information, a wherein the period is shown on a screen that indicates a change of the vital information over time, in a manner visually distinguishable from another period.
As can be seen from the above, Applicant has amended claim 1 to clarify that the processor derives a degree of a risk of aggravation of a disease on the basis of an abnormal tendency that appears instantaneously in the vital information, the abnormal tendency appearing in response to underlying diseases that are different from the disease and that influence the risk of aggravation of the disease.
In support of the rejection of claim 1, the Examiner alleges that Fujita, Sakano, and Hame render the claimed invention obvious. Applicant respectfully submits that Applicant's amended claim 1 is patentable over the cited art.
Specifically, the Examiner asserts on page 11 of the Office Action that Fujita discloses driving a degree of a risk of aggravation of a disease on the basis of an abnormal tendency that appears instantaneously in the vital information citing to paragraphs [0067] and [0111].
Although Fujita discloses an estimation function 152 that obtains a degree of the possibility that the patient is contracting a disease, there is no disclosure in Fujita that is directed to deriving a degree of a risk of aggravation of a disease on the basis of an abnormal tendency that appears instantaneously in the vital information, the abnormal tendency appearing in response to underlying diseases that are different from the disease and that influence the risk of aggravation of the disease, as recited in Applicant's amended claim 1.
In fact, Applicant respectfully submits that none of the cited references focus on underlying diseases, and therefore, do not disclose deriving a degree of a risk of aggravation of a disease on the basis of an abnormal tendency that appears in response to underlying diseases that are different from the disease at issue.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that Applicant's amended claim 1, together with claims dependent thereon, are patentable over the cited art.
Applicant's amended claims 13 and 14 recite features similar to those discussed above with regard to claim 1 and are therefore patentable over the cited art at least for reasons similar to those discussed above with regard to claim 1.
Reconsideration and allowance thereof are respectfully requested.
Examiner appreciates applicant’s arguments but does not find them persuasive.
Examiner must take the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims in light of the specification but not reading the specification into the claims. In response to applicants arguments, the recited limitation is “derives a degree of a risk of aggravation of a disease on the basis of an abnormal tendency that appears instantaneously in the vital information, the abnormal tendency appearing in response to underlying diseases that are different from the disease and that influence the risk of aggravation of the disease” and examiner cites to “derives a degree of a risk of aggravation of a disease” in [0111] which discloses, “…. estimates a risk of aggravation of each disease candidate based on the estimated disease candidates , the vital data of the subject…[…]….”. examiner notes Fujita explicitly states estimating a risk of aggravation based on vital data. Examiner cites to “on the basis of an abnormal tendency that appears instantaneously in the vital information, the abnormal tendency appearing in response to underlying diseases that are different from the disease and that influence the risk of aggravation of the disease,” in [0024]-[0027] and [0063] which discloses, “FIG . 3 is a diagram illustrating an example of disease - specific scoring according to the first embodiment . As illustrated in FIG . 3 , the estimation function 152 indicates a degree of a possibility that the patient P is contracting each disease as numerical values of “ O ” to “ 10 ” with respect to each item included in the vital data and activity history information of the patient P. For example , in an example illustrated in FIG . 3 , a score indicating a degree of a relation between maximum and minimum blood pressure values of the patient P and “ thyroid disorder ” is “ 6 ” . The estimation function 152 calculates a total value of the scores for each disease . In a case where the total value of the disease scores is equal to or greater than a defined threshold value , the estimation function 152 estimates the disease as a disease candidate that the patient P may contract a disease.” And see [0064] discloses, “In FIG . 3 , the estimation function 152 calculates two types of a total score based only on the vital data and a total score based on the vital data and the activity history information , but may calculate only the total score based on the vital data and the activity history information.” And see [0065] discloses, “The total value of the scores for each disease indicates the possibility that the patient P is contracting the disease . In the present embodiment , the information indicating the degree of the possibility that the patient P is contracting each disease , such as the total value of the scores for each disease illustrated in FIG . 3 , is referred to as information on a risk of contracting a disease”. Examiner notes Fujita explicitly states estimating a risk of aggravation based on vital data and the remainder of the claim limitation recites abnormal tendency that appears instantaneously in the vital information in which examiner must take the plain definition in broadest reasonable interpretation. Abnormal tendency is interpreted as something that deviates from normal in pattern and instantaneously is done without any delay therefore examiner maintains that Fujita does teach taking continuous data from a wearable terminal including vital sign data as cited therefore done without delay and Fujita ranks the deviations in vital signs for example and determines if they are estimated to be a risk of aggravation of multiple diseases therefore under BRI the abnormal tendency is appearing in response to underlying diseases that are different from the disease and that influence the risk of aggravation of the disease as the diseases are of the user and more than one disease can influence based on things such as vital sign risk of aggravation of other disease thus the art is scoring multiple diseases simultaneoulsy not just one so any underlying disease would be scored along with any other disease using the same abnormal tendencies.
Examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C § 103 rejection
Prior Art Cited But Not Relied Upon
US20160302741A1 – MIYAMURA et. al
A portable medical apparatus includes: a measuring section which is configured to measure a plurality of vital signs parameters based on vital signs signals of a patient; an operating section which is configured to receive a user operation; a displaying section which is configured to dis play: a first screen for displaying first information of at least a part of the plurality of vital signs parameters; and a second screen for displaying second information of at least a part of the plurality of vital signs parameters, the second information at least a part of which is different from the first information; and a controller which is configured to Switch the first screen and the second screen in the displaying section, based on the user operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashley Elizabeth Evans whose telephone number is (571) 270-0110. The examiner can normally be reached Monday – Friday 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mamon Obeid can be reached on (571) 270-1813. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned 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. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/ASHLEY ELIZABETH EVANS/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights