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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/09/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
This action is in response to the amendments filed on 12/09/2025. Claims 15 has been amended, claim 16 has been cancelled, and new claim 21 has been added. Claims 1-15 and 17-20 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “wherein the processor, the medium, and the display are located on a mobile phone, a tablet, a laptop, a computer, or electronic device” is indefinite due to overlap that occurs within elements of the group. For example, “mobile phones”, “tablets”, “laptops” and “computers” are “electronic devices”. Further, “mobile phones”, “tablets”, and “laptops” are “computers”. It is unclear as to what alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim, and all of the listed elements do not share a single structural similarity.
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 1-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative claim 15 recites (additional limitations crossed out):
A system for generating a medical record, comprising:
render,
receive,
process,
render,
selectively render, u
select one of a plurality of templates, from the knowledge base module, each of the templates having one or more fields;
populate one of the fields,
generate,
The above limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and mental processes. That is, other than reciting the steps as being performed by a “processor”, a “medium”, a “display”, an “input device”, and “modules”, nothing in the claim precludes the steps as being described as managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, or mental processes. For example, but for the “processor”, “medium”, “display”, “input device”, and “modules” language, the limitations describe the rendering of an anatomic representation, receiving input having health data, generating processed health data, rendering a marked anatomic site based or an isolated anatomic representation based on the generated processed health data, rendering a mirrored image of the anatomic representation or the isolated anatomic representation based on a user preference, selecting a template, populating fields of the template, and generating a health record, which describes both managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and actions that may be performed mentally and/or with pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” grouping of abstract ideas. Further, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, describes steps that may be performed mentally or with pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements of a “processor”, a “medium”, a “display”, an “input device”, a “printer”, and “modules” to perform the steps. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (see at least Para. [0470]) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computing components. The claims also recite “selectively generate, using the printer, a physical version of the health record”. However, this is merely insignificant post-solution activity. 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 claims are therefore still directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a “processor”, a “medium”, a “display”, an “input device”, a “printer”, and “modules” to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component, or generally linking the judicial exception to a particular environment cannot provide an inventive concept. Further, the additional limitation of “selectively generate, using the printer, a physical version of the health record” is merely a conventional function as evidenced by at least Examiner’s Official Notice. The printing of documents has been prevalent in the art for several decades. The performance of conventional functions by generic computers does not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, the claim is not found to be patent eligible.
Claims 1 and 20 feature limitations similar to those of claim 15, and are therefore also found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 2-14 are dependent on claim 1, and include all the limitations of claim 1. Claims 17-19 are dependent on claim 15, and includes all the limitations of claim 15. Therefore, they are also directed to the same abstract idea. Claim 7 features “wherein processing the input is performed using a language model, a vision-language model, and/or a language-vision model’. However, the functionality intended to be performed by the “models” appears to be based on very rudimentary constraints (e.g., health data). Without some prohibition in the claims regarding scalability, computation load, etc., these “models” could reasonably be considered an additional abstract idea in the “mental process” category, but for which is simply automated (i.e., “apply it”). Claim 17 recites an “image capturing device configured to scan a physical representation”, respectively, however these are merely generic devices performing insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e., input and output of data). Claims 18 and 19 recite “servers” and a “mobile phone, a tablet, a laptop, a computer, and/or electronic device”, respectively, however, mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component, or generally linking the judicial exception to a particular environment cannot provide an inventive concept. The remaining dependent claims have not been found to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or provide significantly more than the abstract idea since they merely further narrow the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8-10, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Molenda (US 2015/0134361)or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Molenda (US 2015/0134361) in view of Bailey (US 2005/0122343).
Regarding claim 1, Molenda discloses A method for generating a medical record, comprising:
rendering, on a display, an anatomic representation; (See at least Fig. 3)
receiving an input, from an input device, having health data, wherein the input is text-based, visual-based, audio-based, and/or based on an interaction with the anatomic representation; (See at least Para. [0036] – “FIG. 3 is a screenshot of one example of an implementation of the present invention. The screenshot illustrates a tab bar 82 configured to allow the user to select a general anatomical location and a graphic window 84 configured to show graphics associated with the selected location. A first toolbar 90 allows the user to interact with the images.”)
processing the input to generate processed health data, the processed health data including a procedure, a diagnosis, a name of an anatomic site, and/or a description of an anatomic site; (See Para. [0016] – “The system allows mapped images to generate lists of treatment locations, biopsy sites, procedure/surgery sites, imaging and photograph sites, patient exam findings, or other relevant information and document a patient encounter using anatomic locations/annotations as the note's foundation, for example, by automatically generating a procedure note by clicking on a specific anatomical area. Users can be allowed to add or customize features/modules as needed.”
rendering, on the display, a marked anatomic site on the anatomic representation that is based on the processed health data, or an isolated anatomic representation having a marked anatomic site that is based on the processed health data; See at least Para. [0036] – “FIG. 3 is a screenshot of one example of an implementation of the present invention. The screenshot illustrates a tab bar 82 configured to allow the user to select a general anatomical location and a graphic window 84 configured to show graphics associated with the selected location. A first toolbar 90 allows the user to interact with the images.”, and Para. [0046] – “The tools for modifying the image and other menus can be accessed directly by tapping a given site. FIG. 5 is a screenshot showing a quick menu 122 associated with an anatomical site marker, "A". In the illustrated example, a context menu 124 has been selected and is displayed at the bottom of the screen. Via the quick menu 122, the user can quickly cycle through multiple menus, facilitating access to the various tools provided in the system.”
selectively rendering, on the display, a mirror image of the anatomic representation with the marked anatomic site or the isolated anatomic representation with the marked anatomic site based on a user preference; (See Para. [0017] – “In addition to static images, Anatomy Mapper can include annotated, rotatable, and scalable 3D and vector models, as well as a variety of medical mapping tools for specialized practice.” Alternatively, if the Applicant continues to argue that a rotated image does not equate to a rotated image, then Examiner points to at least Bailey, Para. [0026] – “However, in the case of symmetric body parts, it can cause confusion because it is not immediately apparent from the image which of two opposite directions is the current view direction. Thus, the MPR image can be inverted or flipped before display so that, for example, the right side of the image always corresponds with the left side of the patient, according to standard practices in radiology.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Molenda to utilize the teachings of Bailey since both Molenda and Bailey are in the same field of endeavor (i.e., presentation of medical images), and all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.)
selecting one of a plurality of templates, each of the templates having one or more fields; (See Para. [0004] – “A knowledge base stores a plurality of templates, each comprising a set of fields. A record generation engine selects an associated one of the plurality of templates according to each of the selected procedure and the location on the displayed anatomical region and populates the set of fields associated with the selected template.”)
populating one of the fields with the anatomic representation with the marked anatomic site or the isolated anatomic representation with the marked anatomic site to generate a populated selected template; (See Para. [0004] – “A knowledge base stores a plurality of templates, each comprising a set of fields. A record generation engine selects an associated one of the plurality of templates according to each of the selected procedure and the location on the displayed anatomical region and populates the set of fields associated with the selected template.”)
generating a health record including the populated selected template. (See Para. [0004] – “A database interface formats the populated template into a database record suitable for an electronic health records database associated with the system.”)
Regarding claim 2, Molenda discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the anatomic representation includes a plurality of predefined anatomic sites. (See Para. [0016] – “For example, Anatomy Mapper is configured to annotate predefined mapped images and/or imported images or photos ( e.g. of patients), save annotated images with associated modifiable text, and export into Electronic Health Records (EHRs) by communicating with EHR systems or, alternatively, save annotated images and text into a stand-alone device running the EHR or Anatomy Mapper.”
Regarding claim 3, Molenda discloses The method of claim 2, wherein one of the predefined anatomic sites is located on and associated with an anatomic region with one or more subregions. (See Para. [0047] – “In an example provided as FIG. 6, we could get a reading for a first location, indicated as a dot on "left lateral malar cheek" and a second location, indicated as an "X" as the "left mid superior malar cheek." The terms used to describe the location ( e.g., mid, lateral, superior, etc.) can have a percentage associated with them indicating how far away from the center they fall. So each annotation acts as its own frame of reference, with a center as well as two or more axes defined. The percentage deviation from the center of each unit will show us how close the annotation is to the border and how close it is to a neighboring anatomic subunit.”)
Regarding claim 8, Molenda discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the marked anatomic site is associated with the processed health data. (See Para. [0047] – “In an example provided as FIG. 6, we could get a reading for a first location, indicated as a dot on "left lateral malar cheek" and a second location, indicated as an "X" as the "left mid superior malar cheek." The terms used to describe the location ( e.g., mid, lateral, superior, etc.) can have a percentage associated with them indicating how far away from the center they fall. So each annotation acts as its own frame of reference, with a center as well as two or more axes defined. The percentage deviation from the center of each unit will show us how close the annotation is to the border and how close it is to a neighboring anatomic subunit.”)
Regarding claim 9, Molenda discloses The method of claim 8, wherein the description of the anatomic site includes a relationship between the marked anatomic site and another anatomic site, wherein the relationship includes a distance between the marked anatomic site and the another anatomic site, a spatial relationship between the marked anatomic site and the another anatomic site, and/or a data-based relationship between the marked anatomic site and the another anatomic site. (See Para. [0047] – “In an example provided as FIG. 6, we could get a reading for a first location, indicated as a dot on "left lateral malar cheek" and a second location, indicated as an "X" as the "left mid superior malar cheek." The terms used to describe the location ( e.g., mid, lateral, superior, etc.) can have a percentage associated with them indicating how far away from the center they fall. So each annotation acts as its own frame of reference, with a center as well as two or more axes defined. The percentage deviation from the center of each unit will show us how close the annotation is to the border and how close it is to a neighboring anatomic subunit.”)
Regarding claim 10, Molenda discloses The method of claim 1, wherein populating one of the fields includes populating one or more additional fields of the fields with the processed health data. (See Para. [0049] – “At 156, at least one of the set of fields associated with the selected template is populated with text describing the selected procedure and the specific location.”)
Regarding claim 14, Molenda discloses The method of claim 1, wherein generating the health record includes formatting the health record into a database record suitable for an electronic health record database. (In light of the 112 rejection, see Para. [0049] – “At 158, the populated template is formatted into a database record suitable for an electronic health records database.”)
Claim 20 features limitations similar to those of claims 1 and 15 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molenda (US 2015/0134361) (and alternatively in view of Bailey (US 2005/0122343) in view of anatomymapper.com available April 26, 2018, hereinafter referred to as anatomymapper.com
Regarding claim 4, Molenda does not explicitly disclose The method of claim 3, wherein the interaction with the anatomic representation includes generating a preview of the anatomic region with the one or more subregions associated with the one of the predefined anatomic sites. (See anatomymapper.com – The archived website allows a user to select a subregion such as “Ears”, “Hands”, or “Feet”, and provides a preview of the boundary of each subregion when the cursor hovers over it. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Molenda to utilize the teachings of anatomymapper.com since it would serve as a visual indication of the user’s desired information.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molenda (US 2015/0134361) (and alternatively in view of Bailey (US 2005/0122343) in view of Tong (US 2021/0241122)
Regarding claim 5, Molenda does not explicitly disclose The method of claim 1, wherein the input is a scanned image of a physical print of the anatomic representation with markups, wherein the markups include the health data. (Molenda discloses receiving images from a camera (see Para. [0035]). However, Molenda does not disclose that the image has markups. See Tong, Para. [0045] – “In some embodiments, medical experts annotate digital representations of tissue samples by placing an appropriately labeled (i.e. colored) annotation including a polygon annotation denoting the region of interest to form the annotated tissue sample images 111. These annotations may include, e.g., a color coded hand-drawn boundary around known regions of interest (e.g., around regions having cells of a type for which the histopathological score prediction model 110 is to identify). Herein, "hand-drawn" refers to any technique for creating the annotations under human direction, such as, e.g., scanning of a physical copy of an image with the annotations drawn on using pen, pencil, marker, etc., using digital image editing software ( e.g., Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Paint, GIMP, etc.), or any other suitable technique.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Molenda to utilize the teachings of Tong since the annotated physical copies may serve to assist in the identification of anatomical regions.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molenda (US 2015/0134361) (and alternatively in view of Bailey (US 2005/0122343) in view of Tong (US 2021/0241122) and in further view of Yu (US 2006/0061599)
Regarding claim 6, Molenda and Tong do not explicitly disclose The method of claim 5, wherein the physical print of the anatomic representation with markups includes orientation markers and processing the input includes detecting orientation markers and normalizing the axis based on the orientation markers. (See Yu, Para. [0022] – “The method of hidden orientation marking is carried out by orientation normalizer 30 performing one or more of the following steps: (1) image orientation is first checked against an image header and/or watermark to see if there is an existing orientation marker; if yes, the orientation is extracted by orientation mark extractor 32; (2) otherwise, orientation recognition algorithms are used by orientation recognizer 34 to recognize the orientation of the picture, and the orientation is obtained; (3) the orientation (2 bits-3bits) is then saved into the picture header or the picture itself by orientation recorder 36; (4) when pictures are to be shown, the user can choose `normalized orientation` to display the pictures, and the normalizer 30 can rotate the images to their normalized orientation to display them on the screen using orientation modifier 38.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Molenda and Tong to utilize the teachings of Yu since it would ensure the correct orientation of the scanned items (i.e., landscape vs portrait).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molenda (US 2015/0134361) (and alternatively in view of Bailey (US 2005/0122343) in view of Ramezani (US 10,956,673)
Regarding claim 7, Molenda does not explicitly disclose The method of claim 1, wherein processing the input is performed using a language model, a vision-language model, and/or a language-vision model. (See Ramezani, Col. 1, Lines 58-64 – “The method may involve receiving text data representing characters in the regulatory content and generating the language embedding based on the received text data. Generating the language embedding may involve generating the language embedding using a pretrained language model to process the text data, the pretrained language model being operably configured to generate the plurality of tokens.” –It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Molenda to utilize the teachings of Ramezani since it would help to identify regions of interest within input text data (Col. 2, Lines 6-11)).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molenda (US 2015/0134361) (and alternatively in view of Bailey (US 2005/0122343) in view of Kim (US 2021/0303263)
Regarding claim 11, Molenda does not explicitly disclose The method of claim 1, wherein processing the input includes detecting a nontechnical term for processed health data and converting the nontechnical term into a technical term. (In light of the 112 rejection above, Kim teaches this. See Kim, Claim 1 – “A dialogue system comprising: a storage configured to store information about a standard language corresponding to a nonstandard language and a language of inaccurate pronunciation; a speech recognizer configured to receive a speech signal, to convert the received speech signal into text, and to correct the converted text into text of the standard language based on information stored in the storage when it is determined that the converted text corresponds to the nonstandard language or the inaccurate pronunciation; and a result processor configured to generate a response corresponding to the corrected text by the speech recognizer, and to control an output of the generated response” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Molenda to utilize the teachings of Kim since it would standardize the language used in the labels of Molenda.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molenda (US 2015/0134361) (and alternatively in view of Bailey (US 2005/0122343) in view of Joao (US 2011/0213625).
Regarding claim 12, Molenda does not explicitly disclose The method of claim 1, wherein processing the input includes detecting a plurality of languages and translating the plurality of languages into the processed health data. (See Joao, Para. [0071] – “Any data or information, or any function, described-herein as capable of being provided by or performed by the present invention, can, if needed, be translated or converted, by the present invention, or by any computer, communication device, or any other device, used in connection with the present invention, into a foreign language or a foreign language counterpart or can be translated or converted into a corresponding foreign language code or information. Any translation or conversion can be performed automatically in response to a respective individual, patient, healthcare provider, provide, payer, insurer, intermediary, or third party, registering or requesting a language preference or translation or conversion request or order with the present invention at any time, or in response to a request or a selection to provide, display, of store, the data or information, or code, or to convert the data or information, or code, into a foreign language at any time.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Molenda to utilize the teachings of Joao since it would standardize the language used in the labels of Molenda.
Regarding claim 13, Molenda does not explicitly disclose The method of claim 1, wherein the input includes a coded input and processing the input includes decoding the coded input into the processed health data. (See Joao, Para. [0201] – “The database 10H can also contain data and/or information regarding any and/or all International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, ICD-10 codes, ICD-9, or any other ICD codes, or other codes, billing codes, diagnostic codes, treatment codes, or symptom codes, as well as any other codes or coding information which pertains to healthcare, the administration of healthcare services, healthcare record keeping, healthcare billing, healthcare diagnostics, healthcare treatments, or any other healthcare or healthcare-related functions or services, or any information or function, described-herein as capable of being provided by the apparatus 100 and method of the present invention. The database 10H can also contain data and/or information regarding the foreign language translations or conversions of or for, or for the foreign language translation or converting, of any of the herein-described International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, ICD-10 codes, ICD-9, any other ICD codes, or other codes, billing codes, diagnostic codes, treatment codes, symptom codes, as well as any other codes or coding information which pertains to healthcare, the administration of healthcare services, healthcare record keeping, healthcare billing, healthcare diagnostics, healthcare treatments, or any of the healthcare or healthcare-related functions or services, or any information or function described-herein as capable of being provided by the apparatus 100 and method of the present invention, into any one or any number of foreign languages.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Molenda to utilize the teachings of Joao since it would standardize the language used in the labels of Molenda.
Claim(s) 15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Molenda (US 2015/0134361)or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Molenda (US 2015/0134361) in view of Bailey (US 2005/0122343), and in further view of Kaufman (US 6,839,455).
Regarding claim 15, Molenda discloses A system for generating a medical record, comprising:
a processor; (Para. [0004])
a medium in communication with the processor, wherein the medium is tangible, non-transitory, and computer readable; (Para. [0004])
processor-executable instructions stored on the medium, the processor- executable instructions defining a mapping platform including a data processing module, a knowledge base module, and/or a generation module; (Para. [0028])
a display in communication with the medium; and (Para. [0028])
an input device in communication with the medium and display; (Para. [0028])
a printer (Para. [0030])
Molenda does not explicitly disclose selectively generate, using the printer, a physical version of the health record (While Molenda does disclose the printing of labels with information corresponding to a patient’s medical record (See Para. [0033] – “The printer 58 is responsive to the record generation engine 66 and configured to print a label including at least the anatomical region, a name of the patient, a date of birth of the patient, a differential diagnosis, a chronological specimen number, letter, or code, and a medical record number.”), Molenda does not appear to disclose printing at least the anatomic representation (ex. image of head) with annotations. See at least Kaufman, Claim 6 – “The method according to claim 1, wherein the generating step further comprises preparing a display of the annotated diagnostic image in the form of an electronic copy, a photograph or a printout.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Molenda to utilize the teachings of Kaufman since it may provide a backup copy of the electronic image.
The remainder of the limitations of claim 15 are similar to those of claim 1 and are therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, Molenda discloses The system of claim 15, wherein the input device includes an image capturing device configured to scan a physical representation with markups of the anatomic representation, wherein the markups include the health data. (See Para. [0030] – “FIG. 2 illustrates a system 50 in accordance with an aspect of the present invention. The system 50 includes a processor 52, a touchscreen display 54, a camera 56, a printer 58 and a non-transitory computer readable medium 60-storing machine executable instructions.”)
Regarding claim 18, Molenda discloses The system of claim 15, wherein the processor and the medium are located on one or more servers. (See Para. [0050] – “The system 200 can be a personal computer, a laptop computer, a workstation, a computer system, an appliance, an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a server, a server blade center, a server farm, etc.”)
Regarding claim 19, Molenda discloses The system of claim 15, wherein the processor, the medium, and the display are located on a mobile phone, a tablet, a laptop, a computer, or electronic device. (See Para. [0050] – “The system 200 can be a personal computer, a laptop computer, a workstation, a computer system, an appliance, an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a server, a server blade center, a server farm, etc.”)
Claim 20 features limitations similar to those of claims 1 and 15 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molenda (US 2015/0134361) (and alternatively in view of Bailey (US 2005/0122343) in view of Kaufman (US 6,839,455), and in further view of “Is it time to start using the emoji in biomedical literature?” by Vikas N O’Reilly-Shah, published December 12, 2018, hereinafter referred to as Shah.1
Regarding claim 21, Molenda, Bailey and Kaufman do not explicitly disclose The system of claim 15, wherein the health record includes labeling provided as a symbol delimited, order-less string of data that includes alphanumeric and symbolic characters representative of the anatomy and non-anatomy data. (See Shah , Page 2– “What might happen to the structure of manuscripts? For example, going from 250 characters in an abstract to 250 emoji is a significant leap. Indeed, an entire abstract could conceivably be captured in emoji. Imagine a case report of a young child admitted by ambulance to an emergency department, in whom a rare disease is uncovered after unrevealing diagnostic studies and failed attempts at conventional treatment. She undergoes a surgical procedure, is discharged home, and makes a full recovery. Such an abstract could be reimagined as follows: 👧🤢🚑🚨🏥👩⚕️🤒📋💉👩🔬🤔💊🤢🤔❗🦓😷✂️🛌⏳😃🏡🤾” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Molenda, Bailey, and Kaufman to utilize emojis as taught by Shah since it may shorten the length of records (See Shah, Page 2 – “The possibilities are numerous—shorter journals, longer journal articles (as measured by the time taken to read), and potentially higher acceptance rates into print journals, since they will have more space to publish.”))
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding claim 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claim remains unclear since it is unclear as to what alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. A computer is not an alternative to a laptop or tablet. Further, all of the listed elements do not share a single structural similarity that is essential to a common use. Paragraph [0137] states, in part, “Non-limiting examples of the input device 988 include tablets, smartphones, computers, headsets, cameras, scanners, goggles, sensors, speakers, microphones, other electronic devices, etc.” Based on this, at least “goggles” may be an electronic device. Goggles and computers do not share structural similarity. For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained. (See at least MPEP 2117.II.A and 2173.05(h))
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant argues that the claims are not drawn to an abstract idea. Applicant states that the claims involve rendering an interactive anatomic visual (i.e., drawing a stick figure), receiving multimodal health data inputs (i.e., patient tells doctor where it hurts, or point on drawing where it hurts), transforming multimodal health data inputs into structured medical information (i.e., patient says they broke their right wrist, doctor notes it as right distal radius fracture), and dynamically rendering anatomical visuals based on the processed data, including selectively rendering a mirror image of the anatomical visual (i.e., drawing the stick figure with an “x” on it’s right-sided (e.g., mirrored) arm). The parenthesized language demonstrate that the claimed functions are at least drawn to the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities” and “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas as they describe human interactions as well as processes that may be performed mentally or with pen and paper.
Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical application by providing a “specific visualization technique”. This is not persuasive. The claims merely render particular data. This meets none of the requirements that are indicative of integration into a practical application. The claims do not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Applicant argues again that he claims are narrow and specific, and does not preempt all uses of anatomical visualization or medical record generation. While the Examiner agrees that some limitations of the claims do indeed add a degree of particularity, they fail to add “significantly more” and merely serve to describe a detailed abstract idea. If a claim is directed to an extremely detailed and specific abstract, the claims must still contain claim elements that qualify as "significantly more" than the abstract idea itself (limitations that do more than merely further limit the scope of the abstract idea).
Applicant argues that the claims effect a transformation to a different state or thing (i.e., raw health inputs into structured, visual medical data and render anatomical visuals that are dynamically marked and selectively mirrored). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The transformation of data does not effect a transformation. See MPEP 2106.05(c), “An "article" includes a physical object or substance. The physical object or substance must be particular, meaning it can be specifically identified. "Transformation" of an article means that the "article" has changed to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which thoughts or human based actions are "changed" are not considered an eligible transformation. For data, mere "manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’" has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1994))” (emphasis added) Further, the utilization of a printer to provide physical versions is merely insignificant post-solution activity.
Applicant's arguments regarding claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues with substance:
Applicant argues that Molenda does not disclose “selectively rendering, on the display, a mirror image of the anatomic representation with the marked anatomic site or the isolated anatomic representation with the marked anatomic site based on a user preference”. Applicant argues that rotating an image is not the same as mirroring an image. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the stance set forth in the previous action. The Examiner further notes that the rejection has been modified to alternatively indicate that newly added prior art Bailey teaches the limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
“Photoshop Tutorial: How to flip an image [60 Seconds] Beginner” by TutorVidCom, available April 15, 20102.
“FASTSTONE ROTATE FUNCTION” by Joe Holler, available May 23, 20093.
“How to Simply Flip Picture/Image in Microsoft Word [Horizontal and Vertical] by Hassan Ali Khalid, available January 1, 20204
“How to Flip an Image in Google Docs” by TigerTips, available April 18, 2020.5
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE G ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9261. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:00 - 4:30 EST; Friday 7:00-11:00 EST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/KYLE G ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/MARK HOLCOMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
1 Available at https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5033
2 Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNfWJ182Nkc
3 Available at https://www.imagingtips.com/faststone/editing/rotate/0rotate.shtml
4 Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sGqGv7gaok
5 Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PTWO9Xg6wc