DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-110407, filed on July 8, 2022.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment filed on February 3, 2026, the following has occurred: claim(s) 1, 11-12 have been amended. Now, claim(s) 1-2, 5-12 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The Applicant has amended independent claims 1, 11-12 to include the steps of “the processor circuitry comparing, for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers, a first type being the type of specific medical treatment included in the extracted one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information with a second type being the type of specific medical treatment associated with both of identification information of the first medical provider and the first injury-or-disease information in the storage device:”, “the processor circuitry detecting. for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers. a discrepancy between the first type and the second type when the first type is different from the second type:”, “the processor circuitry selecting, based on the detected discrepancy, one or more medical providers each of which is a medical provider of which the first type is different from the second type:”, and “the outputting is performed only when the discrepancy is detected for at least any one of the plurality of medical providers other than the first medical provider.”.
The Applicant has added a step for “comparing” and the additional matter of “a discrepancy between the first type and the second type when the first type is different from the second type”. The Applicant’s Specification describes “comparing” or “compared” only as “Therefore, time and effort may be saved as compared with a case where the types of treatments that each doctor is able to perform are recorded in a database.” (Paragraph [0055]) and “As may be seen by comparing FIGs. 9 and 5, the processing in FIG. 9 is different from the processing in FIG. 5 in that step S13 is executed between step S12 and step S14.” (Paragraph [0061]). Further, the Applicant’s Specification makes no mention of “a discrepancy between the first type and the second type when the first type is different from the second type”. The Applicant has amended the claims to rely on the identified “discrepancy”, but the Specification lacks the subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-2, 5-10: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recite(s)
accessing, for each medical provider of a plurality of medical providers each of which provides medical service, identification information of the medical provider, and injury-or-disease treatment information, the injury-or-disease treatment information including: information on a type of an injury or-disease for which the medical provider has an experience of treatment or that the medical provider is able to treat, and information on a type of specific medical treatment the type of specific medical treatment including at least one of surgery, medication, or rehabilitation;
extracting, for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers, one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information, each piece of the one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information being information including: a type of specific medical treatment and a type of injury-or-disease that is same as the first injury-or-disease information;
comparing, for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers, a first type being the extracted one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information with a second type being the type of specific medical treatment associated with both of identification information of the first medical provider and the first injury-or-disease information;
detecting, for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers, a discrepancy between the first type and the second type when the first type is different from the second type;
selecting, based on the detected discrepancy, one or more medical providers each of which is a medical provider of which the first type is different from the second type;
outputting, to the first medical provider, the identification information for each medical provider of the selected one or more medical providers;
wherein
the acquiring of the first injury-or-disease information includes acquiring identification information of the first medical provider, and
the outputting is performed only when the discrepancy is detected for at least any of the plurality of medical providers other than the first medical provider, and
the outputting includes displaying, to the first medical provider, identification information for each medical provider of the selected one or more medical providers, in descending order based on the number of types of specific medical treatments included in the one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information extracted for the each medical provider.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing interactions between people (including following rules or instructions), which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. For example, the claim encompasses a user following instructions to access identification information of a medical provider and injury-or-disease treatment information, a user following instructions to extract one or more pieces of injury-or-disease treatment information, each piece of the one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information being information including a type of treatment and a type of injury-or-disease that is same as the first injury-or-disease information, a user following instructions to compare for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers, a user following instructions to identify a discrepancy between the first type and the second type when the first type is different from the second type, a user following instructions to select one or more medical providers each of which is a medical provider of which the first type is different from the second type, a user following instructions to output, to the first medical provider, the identification information for each medical provider of the selected one or more medical providers. These steps could be accomplished by a person managing medical information to be shown to another person by following rules or instructions, and therefore encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 2, 5-10 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea. For example, claim 2 includes the abstract idea identified above and further describes generic computer components. Similarly, claims 5 and 7 include the abstract identified above and further describe the generic computer components and the extracting step. Similarly, claims 6 and 9-10 include the abstract idea identified above and further describe outputting identification information. Finally, claim 8 includes the abstract idea identified above and further describes the outputting of identification information of the provider. Such steps encompass Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 1-2, 5-10: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining
elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract idea.
Claims 1-2, 5-10, directly or indirectly, recite the following generic computer components, “a computer…”, “…processor circuitry…”, “… a storage device that stores…”, “…from the storage device,…” configured to implement an abstract idea: “The doctor terminal 70 is a terminal such as a personal computer (PC) or a smartphone usable by each doctor. FIG. 2A illustrates a hardware configuration of the doctor terminal 70. As illustrated in FIG. 2A, the doctor terminal 70 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 190, a read-only memory (ROM) 192, a random-access memory (RAM) 194, a storage (in this case, a solid-state drive (SSD), a hard disk drive (HDD), or the like) 196, a network interface 197, a display unit 193, an input unit 195, a portable-type storage medium drive 199, and the like. These components of the doctor terminal 70 are coupled to a bus 198. The display unit 193 includes a liquid crystal display or the like, and the input unit 195 includes a keyboard, a mouse, a touch panel, and the like. In the doctor terminal 70, the CPU 190 executes a program stored in the ROM 192 or the storage 196 or a program read from a portable-type storage medium 191 by the portable-type storage medium drive 199.” (See Specification in Paragraph [0034]). As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 "merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer" is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
The limitation of “acquiring first injury-or-disease information that indicates a type of an injury-or-disease” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it merely recites insignificant, extra-solution activity of data gathering of the abstract idea.
Claims 1-2, 5-10: Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of
generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer
components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a
necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer
cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.")
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 11-12 recite the same functions as claim 1, but in a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and apparatus form.
The addition of “a memory configured to store, for each medical provider of a plurality of medical providers each of which provides medical service, identification information of the medical provider, and injury-or-disease treatment information, the injury-or-disease treatment information including information on a type of an injury-or-disease for which the medical provider has an experience of treatment or that the medical provider is able to treat, and information on a type of specific medical treatment; a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to perform processing, the processing including:” in claim 12 amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract idea. (“As illustrated in FIG. 2A, the doctor terminal 70 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 190, a read-only memory (ROM) 192, a random-access memory (RAM) 194, a storage (in this case, a solid-state drive (SSD), a hard disk drive (HDD), or the like) 196, a network interface 197, a display unit 193, an input unit 195, a portable-type storage medium drive 199, and the like. These components of the doctor terminal 70 are coupled to a bus 198. The display unit 193 includes a liquid crystal display or the like, and the input unit 195 includes a keyboard, a mouse, a touch panel, and the like. In the doctor terminal 70, the CPU 190 executes a program stored in the ROM 192 or the storage 196 or a program read from a portable-type storage medium 191 by the portable-type storage medium drive 199.” (See Specification in Paragraph [0034]).)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2007/0162308) in view of Campbell et al. (U.S. Patent Pre-Grant Publication No. 2013/0096937).
As per independent claim 1, Peters discloses a medical information providing method implemented by processor circuitry of a computer used in a medical information system for medical providers to identify a medical provider with expertise in a specific injury-or-disease for collaborative care, the medical information providing method comprising:
the processor circuitry acquiring, from an input performed by a first medical provider (See Paragraphs [0072], [0079]: When a user accesses the EON Exchange, the type of user and the identity of the user, a determination is made as to what needs are being requested, which the Examiner is interpreting a determination is made as to what needs are being requested to encompass from an input performed by a first medical provider), first injury-or-disease information that indicates a type of an injury-or-disease (See Paragraphs [0078]-[0079], [0083]-[0084]: The relevant databases may be checked for current functionality support such as medical records (Appendix 1: Medical Records - Health History can include Problem List view, updated from previous encounters, diagnoses, with date and status), which the Examiner is interpreting the health history to encompass first injury-or-disease information that indicates a type of an injury-or-disease);
the processor circuitry accessing a storage device that stores, for each medical provider of a plurality of medical providers each of which provides medical service, identification information of the provider, and injury-or-disease treatment information, the injury-or-disease treatment information including: information on a type of an injury-or-disease for which the medical provider has an experience of treatment or that the medical provider is able to treat, and information on a type of treatment, the type of specific medical treatment including at least one of surgery, medication, or rehabilitation (See Paragraphs [0047], [0078]-[0080] and Appendix 1: A request may be made to acquire any data maintained in the system database which is typically maintained in a relational database or similar type of database, types of data may be maintained and/or queried by the EON exchange, the types of data can include Provider Credentialing and Provider Listing which includes provider ID, provider type, and specialty, which the Examiner is interpreting Provider Credentialing to encompass for each medical provider of a plurality of medical providers each of which provides medical service, identification information of the provider, and injury-or-disease treatment information ([0047]: Medical providers (hospitals, clinics, physicians, assistants) can obtain near real time insurance verification and predetermination of what the insurance will cover, and how much will be reimbursed by the Insurance carrier and what is the patient's financial responsibility, while the patient is present and is being discharged), and the specialty of the medical provider to encompass the injury-or-disease treatment information including information on a type of an injury-or-disease for which the medical provider has an experience of treatment or that the provider is able to treat, and information on a type of specific medical treatment (See Appendix 1: Specify Services on Referral: Therapy treatments with multiple procedure codes), and in Appendix 1: Specify any line item(s) for detailed treatments with multiple procedure codes such as surgery, which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass the type of specific medical treatment including at least one of surgery, medication, or rehabilitation);
the processor circuitry extracting, for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers, from the storage device, one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information, each piece of the one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information being information including: a type of specific medical treatment and a type of injury-or-disease that is same as first injury-or-disease information (See Paragraphs [0078]-[0080] and Appendix 1: A request may be made to acquire any data maintained in the system database which is typically maintained in a relational database or similar type of database, types of data may be maintained and/or queried by the EON exchange, the types of data can include Provider Credentialing which includes provider ID, provider type, and specialty, which the Examiner is interpreting the Provider Credentialing to encompass extracting, for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers, from the storage device, one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information, and the specialty of the provider to encompass each piece of the one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information being information including: a type of specific medical treatment and a type of injury-or-disease that is same as first injury-or-disease information (See Appendix 1: Specify Services on Referral: Therapy treatments with multiple procedure codes, Medical Records: Health History: Problem List view, updated from previous encounters, diagnoses, with date and status, Medical Records: Health Risk Assessment – Past History: Full data collection for Patient’s History and Lifestyle to assess risk levels, and Medical Records: SOAP Notes)); and
the processor circuitry outputting, to the first medical provider, the identification information for each medical provider of the selected one or more medical providers (See Fig. 6D, Paragraphs [0052], [0079], [0084], and Appendix 1: The current functionality check, where the relevant database(s) may be checked for current functionality support such as health screening, medical records, medications, outcomes, patient care and/or other functionality, which the Examiner is interpreting the request by the user to acquire any data maintained in the system database (Paragraph [0079]) to encompass outputting, to the first medical provider, the identification information when combined with Campbell disclosed below);
wherein the acquiring of the first injury-or-disease information includes acquiring identification information of the first medical provider (See Paragraphs [0078]-[0080] and Appendix 1: A request may be made to acquire any data maintained in the system database which is typically maintained in a relational database or similar type of database, types of data may be maintained and/or queried by the EON exchange, the types of data can include Provider Credentialing which includes provider ID, provider type, and specialty, which the Examiner is interpreting the specialty of the provider to encompass the acquiring of the first injury-or-disease information includes acquiring identification information of the first medical provider (See Appendix 1: Specify Services on Referral: Therapy treatments with multiple procedure codes)); and
the outputting is performed only when the discrepancy is detected for at least any one of the plurality of medical providers other than the first medical provider (See Paragraphs [0052], [0078]-[0080] and Appendix 1: A request may be made to acquire data maintained in the system database which is typically maintained in a relational database or similar type of database, types of data may be maintained and/or queried by the EON exchange, the types of data can include Provider Credentialing which includes effective and termination dates, languages, date of birth, citizenship status, which the Examiner is interpreting the toolbar is adaptable so that the displays and content information are altered based on the identity of the stakeholder using the toolbar to encompass outputting ([0052]) when combined with Campbell’s identification of the discrepancy.)
While Peters teaches a method for outputting, to the first medical provider, the identification information for each medical provider of the selected one or more medical providers, Peters may not explicitly teach the processor circuitry comparing, for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers, a first type being the type of specific medical treatment included in the extracted one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information with a second type being the type of specific medical treatment associated with both of identification information of the first medical provider and the first injury-or-disease information in the storage device;
the processor circuitry detecting, for each medical provider of the plurality of
medical providers, a discrepancy between the first type and the second type when the first type is different from the second type;
the processor circuitry selecting, based on the detected discrepancy, one or more medical providers each of which is a medical provider of which the first type is different from the second type;
wherein the outputting includes displaying, to the first medical provider, identification information for each medical provider of the selected one or more medical providers, in descending order based on the number of types of specific medical treatments included in the one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information extracted for each medical provider.
Campbell teaches a method for the processor circuitry comparing, for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers, a first type being the type of specific medical treatment included in the extracted one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information with a second type being the type of specific medical treatment associated with both of identification information of the first medical provider and the first injury-or-disease information in the storage device (See Paragraphs [0130]-[0135], [0143]-[0144]: The medical providers knowledge base and interaction website is scripted to analyze it and create unifying ranking of every provider, patients will be able to compare the number of procedures performed and the number of specific conditions treated, which the Examiner is interpreting search for a doctor indicating specific disease to encompass a second type being the type of specific medical treatment associated with both of identification information of the first medical provider and the first injury-or-disease information in the storage device, and interpreting the medical providers knowledge base and interaction website is scripted to have the patients' surgery or disease coding and conditions inputted directly by the medical provider's office itself, which allows the scripted routines to count the number of procedures performed by the medical provider to encompass a first type being the type of specific medical treatment included in the extracted one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information, and interpreting the ranking of every provider to encompass comparing, for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers);
the processor circuitry detecting, for each medical provider of the plurality of
medical providers, a discrepancy between the first type and the second type when the first type is different from the second type (See Paragraphs [0075]-[0078]: The search functionality to give an ability of the medical provider to compare himself/herself in the search criteria including 1) customer service rating of the medical provider, 2) overall ranking of the medical provider, 3) scoring in any particular category listed in the survey, and 4) the number of specific medical procedures performed and diseases treated, with one or more medical providers from the plurality, which the web page then displays the comparison data, which the Examiner is interpreting the identification of a number of specific medical procedures performed and diseases treated can identify a discrepancy between the first type and the second type when the first type is different from the second type as a discrepancy can be described as a difference or variance between two or more figures, results, etc.);
the processor circuitry selecting, based on the detected discrepancy, one or more medical providers each of which is a medical provider of which the first type is different from the second type (See Paragraph [0041]: Users can filter their searches by location, specialty, accepted health insurance plans, and other highly-specific criteria, the medical providers' knowledge base and interaction website is scripted to provide a best match between a potential patient's needs, including at least, 4) overall ranking of the medical provider, 5) medical skills of the medical provider including the doctor's specialty and the number of specific medical procedures performed and diseases treated, which the Examiner is interpreting that in the ranking of the medical providers for a best match there could be differences between a first type and a second type, the Examiner is interpreting this identification of differences to encompass selecting, based on the detected discrepancy, one or more medical providers each of which is a medical provider of which the first type is different from the second type as a patient would be able to select a medical provider based on a possible discrepancy);
wherein the outputting includes displaying, to the first medical provider, identification information for each medical provider of the selected one or more medical providers, in descending order based on the number of types of specified medical treatments included in the one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information extracted for each medical provider (See Paragraphs [0069]-[0070], [0270]: Ranking/Scoring of medical providers is based on the weighted order of the criteria that the user selected for the search, which the Examiner is interpreting ranking of medical providers to encompass identification information for each medical provider of the selected one or more medical providers in descending order based on the number of types of specified medical treatments included in the one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information extracted for each medical provider ([0041]: medical skills of the medical provider including the doctor's specialty and the number of specific medical procedures performed and diseases treated) and the display of a computer to encompass the outputting includes displaying ([0270]).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed to modify the method of Peters to include the processor circuitry comparing, for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers, a first type being the type of specific medical treatment included in the extracted one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information with a second type being the type of specific medical treatment associated with both of identification information of the first medical provider and the first injury-or-disease information in the storage device; the processor circuitry detecting, for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers, a discrepancy between the first type and the second type when the first type is different from the second type; the processor circuitry selecting, based on the detected discrepancy, one or more medical providers each of which is a medical provider of which the first type is different from the second type; wherein the outputting includes displaying, to the first medical provider, identification information for each medical provider of the selected one or more medical providers, in descending order based on the number of types of specific medical treatments included in the one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information extracted for each medical provider as taught by Campbell. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Peters with Campbell with the motivation of providing medical providers with access to data to be able to make improvements to their way of providing care (See Detailed Discussion of Campbell in Paragraph [0141]).
Claim(s) 11-12 mirrors claim 1 only within different statutory categories, and are rejected for the same reason as claim 1.
The addition of “a memory configured to store, for each medical provider of a plurality of medical providers each of which provides medical service, identification information of medical the provider, and injury-or-disease treatment information, the injury-or-disease treatment information including information on a type of an injury-or-disease for which the medical provider has an experience of treatment or that the medical provider is able to treat, and information on a type of specific medical treatment; a processor coupled to the memory, the processor being configured to perform processing, the processing including:” in claim 12 are encompassed by Peters in Paragraph [0072]: The same software resides in some central location on one logical computing processor and database.
As per claim 2, Campbell/Peters discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Peters further teaches wherein information is recorded in the storage device each time the medical provider provides medical service to a patient (See Paragraph [0084] and Appendix 1: A check is made whether a database must be updated with new information, which the Examiner is interpreting updated with new information to encompass information is recorded in the storage device each time the medical provider provides medical service to a patient as Appendix 1 teaches in Provider Productivity by Procedure that includes times each procedure has been performed by each provider.)
As per claim 5, Campbell/Peters discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Peters further teaches wherein the storage device stores, for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers, in association with the identification information of the provider, injury-or-disease treatment information that includes information on a type of an injury-or-disease for which the medical provider has an experience of treatment, information on a type of specific medical treatment, and a date on which a treatment was performed (See Paragraphs [0078]-[0079]: Appendix 1: Provider Listing, Provider Listing with service Facilities, and Provider Productivity by Procedure, can include times each procedure has been performed by each provider, which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass the medical provider has an experience of treatment, information on a type of specific medical treatment (Specify Services to be Certified or Authorized includes detailed treatments with multiple procedure codes), and a date on which a treatment was performed), the extracting extracts, for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers, from the injury-or-disease treatment information that includes information on a type of injury-or-disease corresponding to the first injury-or-disease information, the injury-or-disease treatment information in which the date on which a treatment was performed is included within a predetermined period in a past (See Paragraphs [0078]-[0079] and Appendix 1: Appendix 1 includes Insurance Reimbursement Analysis Report can include User may define reporting period by claim date/encounter date, which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass the claimed portion.)
As per claim 6, Campbell/Peters discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Peters further teaches wherein the outputting of the identification information of the medical provider is performed in a case where a predetermined number or more of pieces of the information on a type of specific medical treatment included in the injury-or-disease treatment information extracted for each medical provider satisfy a criterion (See Fig. 6D, Paragraphs [0052], [0079], [0084], and Appendix 1: The current functionality check, where the relevant database(s) may be checked for current functionality support such as health screening, medical records, medications, outcomes, patient care and/or other functionality, which the Examiner is interpreting the request by the user to acquire any data maintained in the system database (Paragraph [0079]) to encompass outputting the identification information of the provider.)
As per claim 7, Campbell/Peters discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Peters further teaches wherein the storage device stores, for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers, in association with the identification information of the medical provider, injury-or-disease treatment information that includes information on a type of an injury-or-disease for which the medical provider has an experience of treatment, information on a type of specific medical treatment, and a date on which a treatment was performed (See Paragraphs [0078]-[0079]: Appendix 1: Provider Listing, Provider Listing with service Facilities, and Provider Productivity by Procedure, can include times each procedure has been performed by each provider, which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass the medical provider has an experience of treatment, information on a type of specific medical treatment (Specify Services to be Certified or Authorized includes detailed treatments with multiple procedure codes), and a date on which a treatment was performed),
the extracting extracts, for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers, from the injury-or-disease treatment information that includes information on a type of injury-or-disease corresponding to the first injury-or-disease information, the injury-or-disease treatment information in which the date on which a treatment was performed is included within a predetermined period (See Paragraphs [0078]-[0079] and Appendix 1: Appendix 1 includes Insurance Reimbursement Analysis Report can include User may define reporting period by claim date/encounter date, which the Examiner is interpreting to encompass the claimed portion), and
the outputting of the identification information of the medical provider is performed in a case where a predetermined number or more of pieces of the information on a type of specific medical treatment included in the injury-or-disease treatment information extracted for each medical provider satisfy a criterion (See Fig. 6D, Paragraphs [0052], [0079], [0084], and Appendix 1: The current functionality check, where the relevant database(s) may be checked for current functionality support such as health screening, medical records, medications, outcomes, patient care and/or other functionality, which the Examiner is interpreting the request by the user to acquire any data maintained in the system database (Paragraph [0079]) to encompass outputting the identification information of the provider.)
As per claim 8, Campbell/Peters discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Peters further teaches wherein the acquiring includes acquiring information on a first type of specific medical treatment (See Paragraphs [0078]-[0079], [0083]-[0084]: The relevant databases may be checked for current functionality support such as medical records (Appendix 1: Medical Records - Health History can include Problem List view, updated from previous encounters, diagnoses, with date and status, and Specify Services to be certified or Authorized - specify any line item(s) for detailed treatments with multiple procedure codes), which the Examiner is interpreting the detailed treatments with multiple procedure codes to encompass acquiring information on a first type of specific medical treatment), and
the outputting of the identification information of the medical provider is performed in a case where the information on a type of treatment included in the injury-or- disease treatment information extracted for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers is identical to the information on the first type of specific medical treatment (See Fig. 6D, Paragraphs [0052], [0079], [0084], and Appendix 1: The current functionality check, where the relevant database(s) may be checked for current functionality support such as health screening, medical records, medications, outcomes, patient care and/or other functionality, which the Examiner is interpreting current functionality support such as health screening, medical records, medications, outcomes, patient care and/or other functionality to encompass outputting of the identification information of the medical provider is performed in a case where the information on a type of specific medical treatment included in the injury-or- disease treatment information extracted for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers is identical to the information on a first type of specific medical treatment.)
As per claim 9, Campbell/Peters discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Peters further teaches wherein the outputting preferentially outputs identification information of a medical provider with a smaller number of types of specific medical treatments included in the extracted injury-or-disease treatment information (See Paragraphs [0055], [0070] and Appendix 1: A stakeholder can be a specialist healthcare provider (Claim 12), and Specify Services to be certified or authorized includes Specify any line item(s) for detailed treatments with multiple procedure codes, which the Examiner is interpreting that a specialist would be a medical provider with a smaller number of types of specific medical treatments included in the extracted injury-or-disease treatment information.)
As per claim 10, Campbell/Peters discloses the method of claim 1 as described above. Peters further teaches wherein the outputting of the identification information of the medical provider includes
outputting information on a distance between a place where the medical provider performs a treatment and a first position related to a patient, and/or
outputting the identification information of the medical provider in a mode according to the information on the distance (See Paragraphs [0068]-[0072]: Data can be compiled by population centers (geography), which the Examiner is interpreting the identification of geography to encompass the medical provider in a mode according to the information on the distance.)
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed on February 3, 2026, the Applicant argues that the newly amended and/or added claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s). The Examiner does not acknowledge that the newly added and/or amended claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection(s), the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s), and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s).
The Applicant argues that:
(1) Applicant contends that this characterization misapprehends the true essence of claim 1, particularly in light of the specific technical context and the detailed, computer-implemented steps now recited. While the claimed method indeed facilitates collaborative care among medical providers, its core contribution resides in providing a technical solution to a technical problem within the medical field. Applicant respectfully submits that the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 fails to adequately consider the specific technical problems addressed and solved by the claimed invention, as detailed in the present specification. The amended claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea, but rather to a concrete solution to a technical problem within the medical field. As articulated in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(l), not all claims that merely involve an abstract idea are directed to one, and great care must be taken to distinguish between claims that recite an exception and those that merely involve one. The claimed invention is not merely about organizing human activity; it is about leveraging specific computational processes and medical data to identify suitable medical providers based on objective, quantifiable criteria. The Examiner's broad interpretation effectively overlooks the precise, non-generic details that delineate the claimed invention from a mere abstract mental process that could be performed by a human using pen and paper. Here, the system requires accessing and processing large volumes of structured medical data, such as injury-or-disease treatment information including specific medical treatments, and performing intricate selection and ranking based on these data points, often in a dynamic and real-time manner. Such a complex, data-driven selection process, particularly considering the vast amount and specificity of medical information involved, cannot practicably be performed in the human mind, thereby precluding its classification as a mental process. As explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III), especially in light of the 101 Reminder Memo, which cautions examiners not to expand the mental process grouping to encompass limitations not practically performable by a human mind, the claimed process transcends simple human cognitions. Therefore, Applicant believes that the claimed invention, when considered as a whole, does not recite a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong 1;
(2) the additional elements in the claim, when considered as a whole, integrate any such exception into a practical application and represent a clear improvement to a technology or technical field. The Examiner's contention that the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract idea is a similar oversimplification. As emphasized in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(l) and MPEP § 2106.05(a), a claim that improves the functioning of a computer or another technology is not directed to a judicial exception. The Desjardins Notice further reinforces this by highlighting the Federal Circuit's leading cases, particularly Enfish, which recognized that improvements to software, even if not defined by particular physical features, can constitute non-abstract improvements to computer technology. The claimed invention, through its specific steps, addresses a critical technical problem in collaborative healthcare: the inefficient and often subjective process of identifying suitable specialists. The claimed invention does not merely automate a known manual process, but rather introduces a sophisticated, computerized method for acquiring and processing highly specific, structured medical data. This requires accessing a storage device that stores detailed "injury-or-disease treatment information," including types of specific medical treatments (e.g., surgery, medication, rehabilitation) and corresponding injury-or-disease types. This is not mere data gathering, but the structured handling of complex medical information that would be impractical and error-prone for human manual processing. Furthermore, the system precisely selects medical providers based on a given criterion and, crucially, ensures that the outputted providers offer specific medical treatments different from those of the first medical provider. This explicit negative condition, combined with the comprehensive input and processing of medical treatment types, represents a non-generic, specific instruction for solving a technical problem in medical referral. Finally, the output is explicitly required to be displayed "in descending order based on the number of types of specific medical treatments included in the one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information extracted for the each medical provider." This is not a generalized display method but a tailored presentation that directly enhances the efficiency and effectiveness of a medical provider's decision-making process for patient referral. This provides a specific technical advancement in how medical information is presented and utilized for collaborative care, moving beyond mere "displaying the result" as characterized by the Examiner. These elements, taken together, do not merely "manage interactions between people" but provide a concrete, technical solution to a specific problem in medical referral. The system's ability to precisely match patients with providers possessing complementary skill sets, rather than simply listing all available providers, constitutes a technological improvement in healthcare management. The Examiner's reliance on cases like Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services regarding "mere automation of manual processes" is unpersuasive, as the claimed invention goes beyond simple automation. As articulated in MPEP § 2106.05(f), a claim constitutes "significantly more" when it recites a technological solution to a technological problem, rather than merely stating "apply it." Here, the claimed invention provides a particular solution to the problem of efficiently matching complex medical needs with specialized medical expertise, which, in the context of medical system functionality, is an improvement akin to those deemed eligible in Enfish and McRO. Furthermore, the Desjardins Notice and Ex parte Desjardins decision instruct examiners that eligibility determinations should turn on whether claims are directed to an improvement in computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea. The improvements identified in Ex parte Desjardins (e.g., reduced storage, reduced system complexity, streamlining, preservation of performance attributes) were considered technological improvements to how the machine learning model itself operates. Analogously, the claimed invention improves the functionality of a medical information system by providing a refined and targeted mechanism for identifying specialists, thereby streamlining the referral process and reducing the cognitive burden on medical professionals. This is not a general field-of-use limitation, but actively shapes the behavior of the computer system to achieve a specific, improved outcome in the medical referral process. Thus, Applicant believe that the subject matter of the amended claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A - Prong 2: Yes);
(3) the combination of features in amended claim 1 provides an "inventive concept" sufficient to amount to "significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea. The Examiner's assertion that the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely comprise generic computer components appears to be incorrect. MPEP § 2106.05(d) explicitly states that an additional element (or combination of elements) that is known in the art can still be unconventional or non-routine, and that the "inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art." This point was underscored in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, where an inventive concept was found possible in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of individually well-known and conventional components. The claimed invention presents a unique combination of steps that collectively move beyond routine or conventional activities. Firstly, the requirement that "the outputting is performed only when the type of specific medical treatment... is not identical to the type of specific medical treatment associated with both of identification information of the first medical provider and the first injury-or-disease information in the storage device" is a crucial and unconventional filtering mechanism. This ensures that the system identifies complementary expertise, rather than simply any available provider. This specific exclusion makes the system particularly useful for collaborative care, addressing the technical problem of finding specialists who can augment the first provider's capabilities. This goes beyond mere data filtering and represents a unique analytical process. Secondly, the instruction to display identification information "in descending order based on the number of types of specific medical treatments included in the one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information extracted for the each medical provider" provides a specific, objective, and non-generic ranking mechanism. This is not a general ranking based on user preferences or arbitrary criteria, but a functional ranking directly tied to the breadth of a specialist's relevant treatment experience for the patient's specific injury-or-disease. This particular display strategy is an inventive solution for presenting information in a way that directly supports the objective of finding the most experienced and suitable specialist for a medical referral. These combined limitations are not "insignificant extra-solution activity" nor are they merely linking the use of a judicial exception to a "particular technological environment or field of use." Instead, they constitute an "ordered combination" of elements that transforms any underlying abstract idea into a patent-eligible application, offering a specific technological solution to a defined problem in medical practice. The system, as claimed, provides a structured and nuanced way for medical providers to identify collaborators with genuine complementary skills for patients, which significantly enhances the efficiency and quality of medical referral processes. As recognized in BASCOM, an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of components that are individually well-known and conventional. The unique combination and interaction of the claimed elements achieve a synergistic technical effect, providing "significantly more" than an abstract idea performed on a generic computer. Thus, Applicant believes that the subject matter of the amended claims amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: Yes). Accordingly, withdrawal of the rejection of all independent claims and all claims depending therefrom is respectfully requested. In a case where the Examiner believes that the current claim set should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter, the Applicant would appreciate it if the Examiner could suggest claim amendments to overcome such rejection;
(4) claim 1 distinguishes over each of Peters and Campbell, and thus over their combination. The claimed invention provides a medical information providing method implemented by processor circuitry of a computer specifically for medical providers to identify suitable medical providers for collaborative care. This method is uniquely characterized by explicitly comparing the types of specific medical treatments offered by potential collaborative providers with those of the first medical provider, detecting discrepancies between them, and selecting providers based on these detected discrepancies for output. This specific comparison and discrepancy-based selection constitute a novel technical approach to the problem of facilitating inter-provider referrals. The Examiner interprets these as encompassing the "type of specific medical treatment including at least one of surgery, medication, or rehabilitation." However, these disclosures in Peters merely list general capabilities or statistical data regarding procedures. They do not teach, either explicitly or implicitly, a mechanism for a processor circuitry to actively compare and contrast the specific medical treatment types provided by a candidate medical provider against those associated with the first medical provider for a particular injury-or-disease. More specifically, Peters lacks any teaching of the claimed steps where processor circuitry compares a first type of specific medical treatment (from a candidate provider) with a second type (from the first medical provider) and then detects a discrepancy when these types are different as recited in claim 1. Peters neither teaches nor suggests this specialized functional logic (comparing and detecting discrepancies in specific treatment capabilities) that is central to the claimed invention's ability to identify complementary expertise for collaborative care. Furthermore, the Examiner's broad interpretation of Peters' disclosure of "Provider Credentialing which includes effective and termination dates, languages, date of birth, citizenship status" ([0127]) as encompassing the claimed filtering logic of "outputting is performed only when the type of specific medical treatment extracted ... is not identical to the type of specific medical treatment associated with both of identification information of the first medical provider and the first injury-or-disease information" is an untenable overextension. This administrative and demographic information in Peters does not provide a basis for teaching the specific comparison and discrepancy detection logic of the claimed invention. The Examiner further relies on Campbell et al. to supplement the alleged deficiencies in Peters, particularly for the "selecting" and "descending order" display elements. Campbell describes a patient-centric website aimed at allowing patients to find and compare medical providers based on various user-weighted criteria, such as customer service ratings, location, and also "medical skills... including the doctor's specialty and the number of specific medical procedures performed and diseases treated" ([0041], [0069]). While Campbell indeed teaches selection based on multiple criteria and allows for ranking influenced by user preferences, it fundamentally differs from the claimed invention in critical aspects. Campbell's system is designed to provide a "best match" to a patient's needs ([0041]), which is distinct from a referring medical provider's need to identify providers with complementary treatment expertise based on a technical comparison and detection of discrepancies. Crucially, Campbell does not teach the explicit steps of comparing specific treatment types between two providers, detecting a discrepancy when these types are different, and selecting based on this detected discrepancy, as specified in Claim 1. The outputting described in Campbell ([0069]) is a general ranking based on user-weighted criteria, not a specific "descending order based on the number of types of specific medical treatments included in the one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information extracted for the each medical provider" after a discrepancy detection between the first and other providers. The Examiner's reference to the Applicant's specification paragraph [0101] to analogize Campbell's ranking to the claimed ranking is unpersuasive because [0101] specifically refers to "clinic A has no experience," which inherently implies a comparison and discrepancy detection-a feature explicitly claimed but absent in Campbell. Among other things, a prima facie case of obviousness must establish that the asserted combination of references teaches or suggests each and every element of the claimed invention. In view of the distinction of claim 1 noted above, at least one claimed element is not present in the asserted combination of references. Hence, the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness vis-a-vis claim 1;
(5) no reasonable motivation appears to exist for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peters and Campbell to arrive at the claimed invention. Peters addresses a broad, system-level problem of interoperability and data integration across diverse healthcare stakeholders for administrative and transactional efficiency. Campbell focuses on a patient-facing platform to assist patients in selecting a medical provider based on a wide array of criteria, including general medical skills. Neither reference, nor their combination, suggests a motivation to implement the specific complex logic of comparing the specific medical treatment types between a referring medical provider and potential specialists for an explicit discrepancy detection to facilitate collaborative care. The Examiner's asserted motivation, ''i.e., providing medical providers with access to data to be able to make improvements to their way of providing care”, is overly generic. This broad motivation does not teach or suggest the particular technical solution of identifying and outputting providers who possess different or supplementary specific treatment capabilities relative to the first medical provider for a specific medical condition. The claimed invention is not merely an aggregation of known elements with predictable results, but a novel application of comparative analysis to solve a specific problem in a specialized domain of collaborative medical care. The combination proposed by the Examiner fails to teach or suggest the distinct technical steps of comparing, detecting, and selecting based on the detected discrepancy in specific medical treatment types, which are central to Claim 1. The claimed invention, with its explicit processor-implemented steps focusing on identifying complementary expertise based on treatment type discrepancies, provides a concrete technical solution that significantly advances the art beyond the generalized data integration of Peters and the patient-centric search of Campbell. Claims 2, and 5-10 ultimately depend from claim 1, these claims incorporate all the elements of independent claim 1 and plus additional patentable features. Hence, each of these claims is likewise patentably distinguishable over the cited references. Independent claims 11 and 12, although differing in scope and/or statutory class, patentably define over the cited references at least for reasons analogous to the reasons stated above for the patentability of claim 1. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that claims 11 and 12, and the various claims depending therefrom, patentably define over the cited references. Withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.
In response to argument (1), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the claims are directed to managing interactions between people (including following rules or instructions), which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. The Examiner does not acknowledge that the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application as the Applicant’s claims are similar to “mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017)” (See MPEP 210.05(a)(I)), which the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (2), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner does not acknowledge that the Applicant’s newly amended claims recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer or another technology as the Applicant’s newly amended claims have added identifying discrepancies with data and selecting one or more medical providers based on said discrepancies, which the Examiner maintains are steps directed to managing interactions between people (including following rules or instructions). The addition of the generic computer component of “processor circuitry” does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as the additional element amounts to "merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer". The limitation of “acquiring first injury-or-disease information that indicates a type of an injury-or-disease” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it merely recites insignificant, extra-solution activity of data gathering of the abstract idea. The Examiner maintains that the newly amended claims recite an abstract idea as the process of referring a patient to another medical specialist generally requires the medical specialist to have a different specialty than the referring medical specialist as a medical referral is based on the present medical specialists lack of experience in a medical field. Further, ranking a set of data based on the amount of data linked to the first set of data does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner maintains that the Applicant’s claims are similar to “mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase, Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017)” (See MPEP 210.05(a)(I)) as the claimed limitations are processes that are automated by generic computer components (“processing circuitry” and “storage device”). The Examiner does not acknowledge that the Applicant’s newly amended claims are similar to Enfish and McRo, the Examiner maintains that the Applicant’s newly amended claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner maintains that in light of the Desjardins Notice and Ex parte Desjardins, the Applicant’s claims are not directed to an improvement in computer functionality. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (3), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application. The Examiner does not find “the outputting is performed only when the type of specific medical treatment... is not identical to the type of specific medical treatment associated with both of identification information of the first medical provider and the first injury-or-disease information in the storage device” to be an unconventional filtering mechanism as this claimed limitation is identifying a difference between data and then displaying the identified difference. The Examiner maintains that these steps are similar to “Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48” (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)), which the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (4), the Examiner does not find the Applicant’s argument(s) persuasive. The Examiner maintains that Peters/Campbell encompass the newly amended claimed portions. Campbell teaches “the processor circuitry comparing, for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers, a first type being the type of specific medical treatment included in the extracted one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information with a second type being the type of specific medical treatment associated with both of identification information of the first medical provider and the first injury-or-disease information in the storage device” and “the processor circuitry detecting, for each medical provider of the plurality of medical providers, a discrepancy between the first type and the second type when the first type is different from the second type” as rejected above in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) in Paragraphs [0130]-[0135], [0143]-[0144] and [0075]-[0078]. The Examiner maintains that Peters’ teaches “the outputting is performed only when the discrepancy is detected for at least any one of the plurality of medical providers other than the first medical provider” in Paragraphs [0052], [0078]-[0080] and Appendix 1 as a request may be made to acquire data maintained in the system database which is typically maintained in a relational database or similar type of database, types of data may be maintained and/or queried by the EON exchange, the types of data can include Provider Credentialing which includes effective and termination dates, languages, date of birth, citizenship status, which the Examiner is interpreting the toolbar is adaptable so that the displays and content information are altered based on the identity of the stakeholder using the toolbar to encompass outputting ([0052]) when combined with Campbell’s identification of the discrepancy. Campbell describes medical provider access to the medical providers’ knowledge base and interaction website in Paragraphs [0075]-[0080], Campbell is not simply a patient exclusive website that only allows patients to find and compare medical providers. The Examiner does not acknowledge that Peters/Campbell differs from the claimed invention as “a referring medical provider’s need” would also be similar to a “patient’s needs” as a medical provider would be attempting to identify a specialist to refer a patient to because the medical provider would be attempting to treat a patient, a patient’s medical issue is usually a requirement in medical referrals. The Examiner maintains that Peters/Campbell encompass the newly amended claims. Campbell in Paragraph [0041] discloses “Depending on the ranking of these criteria by the user, the query result as discussed later will be displayed to the user on the web page. Thus, the medical providers' knowledge base and interaction website is scripted to provide a best match between a potential patient's needs, including at least 1) customer service rating of the medical provider and customer comments, 2) ability for home visits by the medical provider, 3) insurance accepted by the medical provider, 4) overall ranking of the medical provider, 5) medical skills of the medical provider including the doctor's specialty and the number of specific medical procedures performed and diseases treated, 6) gender of the medical provider, 7) online appointment availability to see the medical provider, 8) location of the medical provider's facility, 9) religion of the medical provider, 10) human languages spoken at the medical provider's facility, 11) Years of practice by the medical provider, and 12) any combination of at least three of these criteria, to one or more medical provider's from the plurality who hold the skills required to address the user's problem.”, which the Examiner is interpreting medical skills of the medical provider including the doctor's specialty and the number of specific medical procedures performed and diseases treated to encompass “descending order based on the number of types of specified medical treatments included in the one or more pieces of the injury-or-disease treatment information extracted for each medical provider”. The Examiner maintains that the more general ranking described by Campbell encompasses the Applicant’s claimed ranking as the Applicant’s Specification in Paragraphs [0101]-[0102] that “The degree of priority may be represented by rearranging the displayed order of identification information of medical institutions in descending order of the number of types of treatments of which clinic A has no experience.” and “In a case where the "criterion" is that "the medical institution is capable of performing at least one treatment", a screen similar to that in FIG. 8 may be displayed.”. The Applicant’s claims recite that the criterion can be different criteria depending on different conditions as described in Applicant’s Specification in Paragraph [0048]. The Examiner maintains that the ranking of Campbell encompasses the Applicant’s claimed “descending order” as a comparison and identification of discrepancies would be required for any type of ranking. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
In response to argument (5), Applicant's arguments filed February 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner maintains that Peters/Campbell encompass the newly amended claims. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation of providing medical providers with access to data to be able to make improvements to their way of providing care (See Detailed Discussion of Campbell in Paragraph [0141]). Claims 11-12 are similarly rejected and claims 5-10 are rejected individually and due to their dependency to claim 1. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) stand.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bennett S Erickson whose telephone number is (571)270-3690. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bennett Stephen Erickson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights