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 .
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.
Step 1
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1, 3-5, 18, 19 are directed to a device, claims 6, 8-10, and 20 are directed to a method, and, claims 11 and 13-17 are directed towards an system; thus, each of the pending claims are directed to a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1, representative of the claimed invention, recites the steps of accept patient identification information entered into a portable terminal device; retrieve one or more examination orders related to the patient identification information; determine whether a single examination order has been retrieved; and in response to determining that a single examination order has been retrieved, control the portable terminal device to display an entry screen for the medical interview information, determine whether a plurality of examination orders has been retrieved; in response to determining that the plurality of examination orders has been retrieved, determine whether an arrival state indicating a patient has arrived is associated with only one examination order of the plurality of examination orders retrieved; and in response to determining that the arrival state is associated with only one examination order of the plurality of examination orders retrieved, control the portable terminal device to display an entry screen for medical interview information corresponding to the only one examination order associated with the arrival state.
The limitations above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass mental processes and also certain methods of organizing human activity. The claimed steps recite several steps that include observations, evaluations, judgments and opinions, and “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” which have been considered by the courts to be a mental process. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. 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"). The claimed steps also are directed towards managing personal behavior (e.g., determining if an order exists for a particular patient and presenting intake forms).
Apart from the use of generic technology (discussed further below), each of the limitations recited above describes activities that would encompass actions performed in collecting information from a user, correlate it with e.g. scheduling data, and providing medical intake forms.
Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, these activities describe concepts relating to managing personal behavior and mental processes in that the activities relate to collecting and performing analysis of data to provide a result. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, commercial interactions, or fundamental economic practices, then it falls within the “Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The recited steps also are considered to be a mental process as methods that can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements of a processor, storage device, and terminal device. The processor, storage and terminal device are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving information, and displaying data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The claim does 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 processor to perform the steps of “accept patient identification information entered into a portable terminal device; retrieve one or more examination orders related to the patient identification information; determine whether a single examination order has been retrieved; and in response to determining that a single examination order has been retrieved, control the portable terminal device to display an entry screen for the medical interview information” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Step 2B
Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
ii. Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
iii. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
iv. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, e.g., a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 209 USPQ at 21 (see MPEP § 2106.05(c));
v. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
vi. Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea of data comparison into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases, as discussed in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066-68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1499-1502 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).
Claims 1 and 13 are not similar to any of these limitations.
Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claims 1, 6, and 11 recite additional elements that are regarded as “apply it” as seen in the Step 2A Prong 2 discussion above. The claims do not set forth a solution to a problem rooted in technology (e.g., technical solution), as collecting appropriate patient data predate the use of computers.
Looking at the limitations of claims 1, 6, and 11 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, effects a transformation of subject matter to a different state or thing, applies the use of a particular machine, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, claims 1, 6, and 11 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims further describe the abstract idea and do not recite a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception. None of dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-22 recite any further additional elements.
Dependent claims 3-5, 8-10, and 13-22 further narrow the scope of the abstract idea in claims 1 and 13 by providing additional information or considerations used in the analysis.
Thus, claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, 13-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0111554 to Nusimow et al. in view of U.S. Patent 6,208,974 to Campbell et al.
As to claims 1, 6, and 11, Nusimow discloses an information processing device comprising:
one or more processors including hardware, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
accept patient identification information entered into a portable terminal device (Nusimow [0083]);
retrieve one or more examination orders related to the patient identification information (Nusimow [0083] wherein an examination order is an appointment for a particular patient);
determine whether a single examination order has been retrieved (wherein a single appointment for a patient is selected (Nusimow [0083]); and
in response to determining that a single examination order has been retrieved, control the portable terminal device to display an entry screen for the medical interview information corresponding to the single examination order (Nusimow [0091] and [0095]).
However, Nusimow does not explicitly teach determine whether a plurality of examination orders has been retrieved; in response to determining that the plurality of examination orders has been retrieved, determine whether an arrival state indicating a patient has arrived is associated with only one examination order of the plurality of examination orders retrieved; and in response to determining that the arrival state is associated with only one examination order of the plurality of examination orders retrieved, control the portable terminal device to display an entry screen for medical interview information corresponding to the only one examination order associated with the arrival state.
Campbell discloses determine whether a plurality of examination orders has been retrieved; in response to determining that the plurality of examination orders has been retrieved, determine whether an arrival state indicating a patient has arrived is associated with only one examination order of the plurality of examination orders retrieved; and in response to determining that the arrival state is associated with only one examination order of the plurality of examination orders retrieved, control the portable terminal device to display an entry screen for medical interview information corresponding to the only one examination order associated with the arrival state (Campbell column 10 lines 20-53).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing of the application by Applicant to consider a plurality of examination orders as in Campbell in the system of Nusimow to reduce unnecessary data entry.
As to claim 5, 10, 15 , see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Campbell discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to: refer to an arrival state indicating a patient has arrived; determine a plurality of examination orders have been retrieved; and determine whether more than one examination orders of the plurality of examination orders are associated with the arrival state; and in response to determining that more than one examination orders of the plurality of examination orders are associated with the arrival state, control the portable terminal device to display a selection screen for receiving a selection of one of the more than one examination orders associated with the arrival state (Campbell column 10 and column 13 lines 45-57).
As to claims 17 and 19, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Campbell discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to: determine no examination order related to the patient identification information exists; and in response to determining no examination order related to the patient identification information exists, control the portable terminal device to display a message indicating that no examination order for the current day has been issued for the patient (Campbell column 10 lines 12-19).
As to claim 3, 8, and 13 see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Nusimow discloses the information processing device wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
in response to determining that the single examination order has been retrieved, control the portable terminal device to switch, from displaying an entry screen for the patient identification information to the entry screen for the medical interview information (Nusimow [0091] and [0095]).
As to claims 4, 9, and 14 see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Nusimow discloses the information processing device wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
determine whether medical interview information for the single examination order has been retrieved and determining the medical interview information for the single examination order retrieved has not been registered, control the portable terminal device to display the entry screen for the medical interview information (Nusimow [0091] and [0095]).
As to claims 16, 18, and 20 see the discussion of claim 14, 4, and 9, additionally, Nusimow discloses the medical system wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
in response to determining that the single examination order has been retrieved and determining that the medical interview information for the single examination order retrieved has been registered, control the portable terminal device to display a message indicating that the medical interview information has been registered (Nusimow [0098]-[0100]).
As to claim 21, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Campbell discloses the information processing device wherein the one or more processors are configured to, in controlling the portable terminal device to display the entry screen for the medical interview information corresponding to the only one examination order associated with the arrival state: in response to determining that the arrival state is associated with only one examination order of the plurality of examination orders retrieved, control the portable terminal device to prioritize display of the entry screen for medical interview information corresponding to the only one examination order associated with the arrival state over display of the entry screen for medical interview information corresponding to the another examination order not associated with the arrival state to be displayed (Campbell column 10 and column 13 lines 45-57).
As to claim 22, see the discussion of claim 1, additionally, Campbell discloses the information processing device in response to determining that the arrival state is associated with two or more of the plurality of examination orders retrieved, control the portable terminal device to select an order in which entry screens for medical interview information of the two or more examination orders with be displayed, and to display the entry screen in the order selected (Campbell column 10 and column 13 lines 45-57).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to the 103 rejection, Applicant argues Campbell does not teach or suggest: determining whether a plurality of examination orders (e.g., a first examination order to be performed on the patient, and a second examination order to be performed on the patient) has been retrieved; in response to determining the plurality of examination orders has been retrieved, determining whether an arrival state of the patient indicating that the patient has arrived is associated with only one examination order (e.g., the patient has arrived for the first examination order to be performed on the patient but is not present for the second examination order); and in response to determining that the arrival state is associated with only one examination order of the plurality of examination orders retrieved , control a portable terminal device to display an entry screen for medical interview information corresponding to the only one examination order associated with the arrival state. Campbell discloses “As part of the client check in procedure, the System may request the client to Verify client information. At a client check in Screen, the System will check whether the client has been in the hospital in the last 15 days. If so, the system will assume that the client information displayed in this Screen is current. If not, the client Screen will prompt the user to Verify client information.” Determining if there are a plurality of records of examination in hospital within the last 15 days are equivalent to determining the plurality of examination orders has been retrieved, Upon that determination, it presents a display of e.g. an acknowledgment of a signed release for the current visit (determining that the arrival state is associated with only one examination order of the plurality of examination orders retrieved see also “A new medical record, with presenting complaint, is created for each visit of the patient to the hospital.”). The subsequent steps of a software prompting a user for inputs for recording the current visit exam would “control a portable terminal device to display an entry screen for medical interview information corresponding to the only one examination order associated with the arrival state”.
With respect to the rejection under 101, Applicant argues that the claims are similar to example claim 37. However, example 37 is directed to a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices. There is no similar improvement to user interfaces for electronic devices. The rejections are therefore maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Eliza Lam whose telephone number is (571)270-7052. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30PST.
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, Peter Choi can be reached at 469-295-9171. 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.
/ELIZA A LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights