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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is:
“Communication unit” in claims 1 and 4.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 1-15 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-15 recites at least one step or instruction for collecting and determining information, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG and at least one step or instruction for directed to mathematical concepts (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I). The claimed limitations involve a generic computer collecting, generating, comparing, and transmitting data and applying a generic mathematical concept to the data without demonstrating the computer into a practical application. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-15 recites an abstract idea.
Claim 1 recites:
An artificial intelligence (AI) model;
A communication unit;
At least one processor;
receive, from the patient terminal, asthma medication intake status of the patient and the peak expiratory flow (PEF) of the patient (Insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
receive, from the patient terminal, asthma medication intake status of the patient and the peak expiratory flow (PEF) of the patient (Insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g));
calculate first state information about the patient by inputting the received peak expiratory flow and the calculated first asthma symptom score into the Al model (mathematical calculations, which is grouped as a mathematical concept under the 2019 PEG);
generate respiratory disease management information (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
transmit the generated respiratory disease management information to the patient terminal such that information for respiratory disease management of the patient is displayed on the patient terminal (Insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 15 recites:
receiving, from a patient terminal, asthma medication intake status of the patient and a peak expiratory flow (PEF) of the patient (Insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g));
receiving a value entered for a plurality of asthma symptom questions provided to the patient terminal (Insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g));
calculating a first asthma symptom score of the patient based on the received value (mathematical calculations, which is grouped as a mathematical concept under the 2019 PEG);
calculating first state information about the patient by inputting the received peak expiratory flow and the calculated first asthma symptom score into an AI model (mathematical calculations, which is grouped as a mathematical concept under the 2019 PEG);
generating respiratory disease management information including whether the patient needs additional medication, based on the calculated first state information (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
transmitting the generated respiratory disease management information to the patient terminal and displaying information for respiratory disease management of the patient on the patient terminal (Insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Examiner notes that Applicant has put weight on the aspect of utilizing an “artificial intelligence (AI) model” but fails to detail what the model specifically entails, only describing how the model is trained and what the intended functions of the model are in claims 11-15. Applicant’s specification details that the AI model is a model learned based on pieces of patient data [see in ¶ 0133] and may provide guidance by using an instructional algorithm that may be learned through reinforcement learning, imitation learning, or the like, and may operate on a rule basis [see in ¶ 0059-¶ 0060], which can be interpreted very broadly. As a result, claim details of claim 1 can be broadly interpreted as receiving data from the communication unit and using a generic algorithm to determine and transmit a diagnostic result.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 2-14 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract ideas in each of independent Claims 1 (and its respective dependent Claims 2-14) and 15 are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified in independent Claim 1), generally link the use of the above-identified abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of an AI model, communication unit, and one or more processors, as recited in independent claim 1 are generically recited computer elements which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do the above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract ideas identified above in independent Claims 1 and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract ideas (e.g., mental process and mathematical concept) using rules (e.g., AI model) executed by a computer (e.g., at least one processor). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) are not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 15 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-15 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: an AI model, communication unit, and at least one processor, as recited in claim 1.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract ideas to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, the term “processor” is only mentioned for its intended functions and what steps it is configured to carry out [see at least ¶ 0080 – ¶ 0097]. Applicant only discloses that a processor (CPU) of a computer may read through and perform the methods implemented with the claimed program [see in ¶ 0150].
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term “processor” is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the processor. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-15 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. 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. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the device of claims 1-14 and method of claim 15 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process and mathematical concept) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 1-15 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and 15 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-15 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-15 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 1-15 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
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, 2, 4-8, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (KR20120072464A), hereinafter Park, in view of Kim (KR20190115330A).
Regarding claim 1, and substantially similar limitations in claim 15, Park discloses a respiratory disease patient management device comprising:
a communication unit [data transmission and reception unit, see in ¶ 0038 and Fig. 3] configured to communicate with a patient terminal [mobile terminal 10, see in ¶ 0033 and Fig. 2]; and
at least one processor [asthma symptom risk determination unit 20 and asthma symptom diagnosis unit 40, see in ¶ 0037-¶ 0038 and Fig. 3], wherein the processor is 1configured to:
receive, from the patient terminal, asthma medication intake status of the patient and the peak expiratory flow (PEF) of the patient [see in ¶ 0005, ¶ 0007, and ¶ 0017];
calculate a first asthma symptom score of the patient based on a value entered for a plurality of asthma symptom questions provided to the patient terminal [symptom assessment data and asthma symptom risk data, see in ¶ 0007];
when at least one symptom information about the patient is received from the patient terminal, calculate first state information about the patient … the received peak expiratory flow and the calculated first asthma symptom score [see in ¶ 0038] and generate respiratory disease management information including whether the patient needs additional medication, based on the calculated first state information [see in ¶ 0008]; and
transmit the generated respiratory disease management information to the patient terminal such that information for respiratory disease management of the patient is displayed on the patient terminal [see in ¶ 0008, ¶ 0029, and ¶ 0033].
Park fails to disclose an artificial intelligence (AI) model configured to determine a respiratory state of a patient based on a peak expiratory flow and asthma symptom score of the patient and that the first state information about the patient is calculated by inputting the received peak expiratory flow and the calculated first asthma symptom score into the Al model.
However, Kim discloses an artificial intelligence (AI) model configured to determine a respiratory state of a patient based on a peak expiratory flow and asthma symptom score of the patient and that the first state information about the patient is calculated by inputting the received peak expiratory flow and the calculated first asthma symptom score into the Al model [machine learning algorithm, see in ¶ 0010].
Park and Kim are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of respiratory disease monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Park to incorporate the teachings of Kim and include the use of an AI model in order to provide an efficient means to analyze patient data to output the patient’s respiratory state.
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses the respiratory disease patient management device of claim 1, wherein the Al model is configured to:
compare the received peak expiratory flow with a reference peak expiratory flow and compare the calculated first asthma symptom score with a first reference score; and
calculate the first state information about the patient based on the comparison results, and wherein the reference peak expiratory flow and the first reference score are preset to determine additional use of medication for respiratory disease patients [see in ¶ 0038, ¶ 0039, and ¶ 0061].
Regarding claim 4, Park, as modified, discloses the respiratory disease patient management device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: allow the communication unit to load a value of a predetermined item from an EMR medical record of the patient; and calculate the first asthma symptom score based on the loaded value [the asthma symptom diagnosis unit (40) may be linked to an external electronic medical record (EMR) system, although not shown in the drawing, to receive existing drug prescription information for the asthma patient from the electronic medical record system and then generate drug prescription data for the asthma patient based on this, see in ¶ 0030].
Regarding claim 5, Park, as modified, discloses the respiratory disease patient management device of claim 2, wherein the Al model is configured to: when the received peak expiratory flow is greater than or equal to the reference peak expiratory flow, and the first asthma symptom score is increased to be greater than a first asthma symptom score on a previous test by a predetermined score or more, or when the first asthma symptom score does not exceed a first asthma symptom score on a previous test, and the received peak expiratory flow is less than the reference peak expiratory flow, determine that the patient needs one additional dose of medication [see ¶ 0029, ¶ 0038, ¶ 0039, and ¶ 0046].
Regarding claim 6, Park, as modified, discloses the respiratory disease patient management device of claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to: when the received peak expiratory flow is less than the reference peak expiratory flow, and the calculated first asthma symptom score is greater than or equal to the first reference score, determine that the patient needs two additional doses of medication [drug prescription data given based on diagnosis data, see ¶ 0029, ¶ 0038, ¶ 0039, and ¶ 0046].
Regarding claim 7, Park, as modified, discloses the respiratory disease patient management device of claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to: when the patient completes the two additional doses of medication, provide the plurality of asthma symptom questions, which are provided to the patient terminal again after a predetermined time, and calculate a second asthma symptom score of the patient based on the value entered for the plurality of asthma symptom questions thus provided again; calculate second state information about the patient based on the calculated second asthma symptom score; and determine whether the patient needs an outpatient appointment, based on the calculated second state information [second assessments, see in ¶ 0038 - ¶ 0040].
Regarding claim 8, Park, as modified, discloses the respiratory disease patient management device of claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to: when the second asthma symptom score is decreased to be less than the first asthma symptom score by a predetermined score or more, determine that a respiratory state of the patient is improved; and when the second asthma symptom score is not decreased to be less than the first asthma symptom score by a predetermined score or more, determine that the patient needs an outpatient appointment [second assessments, see in ¶ 0038 - ¶ 0040].
Regarding claim 13, Park, as modified, discloses the respiratory disease patient management device of claim 1.
Park fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to: generate a learning dataset by using at least one of the peak expiratory flow of a patient collected from a plurality of patients, an asthma symptom score of the patient, respiratory disease state information of the patient, a symptom of the patient, cause information about the symptom of the patient, the calculated first asthma symptom score, and surrounding environment information of the patient; and perform training by inputting the generated learning dataset to the AI model.
However, Kim discloses wherein the processor is configured to: generate a learning dataset by using at least one of the peak expiratory flow of a patient collected from a plurality of patients, an asthma symptom score of the patient, respiratory disease state information of the patient, a symptom of the patient, cause information about the symptom of the patient, the calculated first asthma symptom score, and surrounding environment information of the patient; and perform training by inputting the generated learning dataset to the AI model [see in ¶ 0077 – ¶ 0079].
Park and Kim are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of respiratory disease monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Park to incorporate the teachings of Kim and include using patient data to train the AI model, as training a model using relevant data sets is common practice for implementing the use of AI/ML algorithms.
Regarding claim 14, Park, as modified, discloses the respiratory disease patient management device of claim 13.
Park fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to: derive the surrounding environment information of the patient based on location information of the patient terminal; and derive at least one respiratory management information based on the derived surrounding environment information by using the AI model and provide the at least one respiratory management information to the patient terminal.
However, Kim discloses wherein the processor is configured to: derive the surrounding environment information of the patient based on location information of the patient terminal; and derive at least one respiratory management information based on the derived surrounding environment information by using the AI model and provide the at least one respiratory management information to the patient terminal [location information server 170 and weather data server 130, see in ¶ 0041; see in ¶ 0060; see also in ¶ 0063].
Park and Kim are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of respiratory disease monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Park to incorporate the teachings of Kim and include using environmental information of the patient and deriving at least one respiratory management information using the AI model to provide to the patient terminal, as environmental factors, such as air quality information, directly impact respiratory conditions of the patient and are very likely to alter their recommended respiratory management/treatment conditions.
Claims 3 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR20120072464A) in view of Kim (KR20190115330A), further in view of Kwon (KR20200100260A).
Regarding claim 3, Park, as modified, discloses the respiratory disease patient management device of claim 1.
Park fails to disclose that the processor is configured to: derive the number of inhaler usages for additional use of medication of the patient; provide the derived number of inhaler usages to the patient terminal; and count the number of remaining inhaler usages based on inhalation sensing data received from the patient terminal so as to be provided to the patient terminal.
However, Kwon discloses that the processor is configured to: derive the number of inhaler usages for additional use of medication of the patient; provide the derived number of inhaler usages to the patient terminal; and count the number of remaining inhaler usages based on inhalation sensing data received from the patient terminal so as to be provided to the patient terminal [measuring means 117 allows for sensing of inhaler usage and capacity while in electrical communication with server and portable device, see in ¶ 0054].
Park and Kwon are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of asthma management systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Park to incorporate the teachings of Kwon and include that inhaler usage data is determined and communicated to the patient terminal by the processor in order to provide clear communication of personalized medication monitoring to the patient.
Regarding claim 9, Park, as modified, discloses the respiratory disease patient management device of claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to: when cause information about a symptom of the patient is received from the patient terminal and derive at least one respiratory precaution for the patient based on the cause information [symptom assessment data and symptom risk, see in ¶ 0005, ¶ 0009, and ¶ 0045].
Park fails to disclose that the processor is configured to store the cause information about the symptom of the patient in a memory.
However, Kwon discloses the processor being configured to store the cause information about the symptom of the patient in a memory [see in ¶ 0037 and ¶ 0043; ].
Park and Kwon are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of asthma management systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Park to incorporate the teachings of Kwon and include that cause information about the symptom of the patient is stored in a memory, in order to conveniently possess the data locally for efficient analysis and processing.
Regarding claim 10, Park, as modified, discloses the respiratory disease patient management device of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to: store the symptom of the patient, the cause information about the symptom of the patient, the received peak expiratory flow, and the calculated first asthma symptom score in the memory; when a specific symptom for the patient is received from the patient terminal, calculate an extent (hereinafter, referred to as a 'symptom-specific risk level') to which each symptom is dangerous, based on the received specific symptom, the first asthma symptom score, which is calculated when the corresponding symptom is received, and the peak expiratory flow; and correct the calculated first asthma symptom score by reflecting the symptom-specific risk level [asthma symptom risk data, see in ¶ 0029, ¶ 0035, and ¶ 0038].
Regarding claim 11, Park, as modified, discloses the respiratory disease patient management device of claim 10.
Park fails to disclose that the processor is configured to train an individual AI model by inputting, as individual learning data, the symptom of the patient stored for the patient, the cause information about the symptom of the patient, the received peak expiratory flow, and the calculated first asthma symptom score.
However, Kim discloses that the processor is configured to: train an individual AI model by inputting, as individual learning data, the symptom of the patient stored for the patient, the cause information about the symptom of the patient, the received peak expiratory flow, and the calculated first asthma symptom score [see in ¶ 0077 – ¶ 0079].
Park and Kim are both analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of respiratory disease monitoring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Park to incorporate the teachings of Kim and include using the listed patient data to train the AI model, as training a model using relevant data sets is common practice for implementing the use of AI/ML algorithms.
Regarding claim 12, Park, as modified, discloses the respiratory disease patient management device of claim 11, wherein the processor is configured to: when a specific symptom for the patient is received from the patient terminal, calculate an extent (hereinafter referred to as 'individual symptom-specific risk level') to which the specific symptom is dangerous to the patient, by inputting the received specific symptom, the first asthma symptom score calculated when the specific symptom is received, and the peak expiratory flow to the individual AI model; and correct the calculated first asthma symptom score by reflecting the individual symptom-specific risk level [asthma symptom risk data, see in ¶ 0029, ¶ 0035, and ¶ 0038].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HY KHANH DOAN whose telephone number is (703)756-5434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5 p.m..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Chen can be reached at (571) 272-3672. 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.
/ERIC F WINAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/HY KHANH DOAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791