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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the present application filed on November 19th, 2025.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 11-12 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 1-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made final.
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 1-12 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.
Step 1 Analysis:
Independent Claims 1 and 9 are within the four statutory categories. Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (i.e. machine) and Claim 9 is directed to a method. Dependent Claims 2-8 and 11 recite an apparatus and Claim 10 recites a method and therefore also fall into one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A Analysis- Prong One:
The substantially similar independent system and method claims, taking Claim 1 as exemplary, recite the following:
A medical information processing apparatus, comprising: processing circuitry configured to:
set a condition to specify medical treatment information to be processed for determining consistency;
acquire, from an electronic medical record system, one or more pieces of medical treatment information about a patient, that satisfy the specified condition;
Acquire one or more first character strings containing contents indicating periods from subjective information as claimed by the patient and objective information as viewed by a healthcare professional contained in the medical treatment information,
acquire, one or more second character strings matching with the periods indicated by the contents contained in the first character strings from the medical information in which date and time of a test and a test result for the same patient as the patient of the medical treatment information are associated,
determine using natural language processing, whether a content indicated by the first character string is consistent with a content indicated by the at least one second character string;
and output specific information specifying a location of the first character string,
in response to determining that the content indicated by the first character string is inconsistent with the content indicated by the at least one second character string, the specific information including a patient code specifying the patient of the medical treatment information and an item code specifying an item including the first character string;
and determine consistency between all the first character strings acquired from all the medical treatment information satisfying the specified condition and the second character strings corresponding to the first character strings.
The series of limitations as shown in underline above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people ( i.e. social activities, teachings, and following rules or instructions – in this case, acquiring medical information, determining if it is consistent with a second set of medical information, specifying the location of the first character string, and determining the consistency between all first character strings and the second character strings corresponding to the first character strings), e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent Claims 2-8, 10, and 11 recite other additional limitations directed toward the abstract idea. For example, Claim 2 states acquiring strings from medical information that meets a certain condition. Claim 3 recites acquiring the second string based on the content of the first. Claim 4 recites acquiring the second string based on the first string. Claim 5 recites determining whether the strings are consistent. Claims 6 and 10 recite displaying an input candidate based on determining consistency. Claims 7 and 8 recite displaying the candidate based on the second character string. Claim 11 recites acquiring a first and second character string. Claim 12 recites displaying each of the at least one input candidate. Accordingly, the dependent claims only server to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, see MPEP 2106.04. Thus, dependent Claims 2-8 and 10-12 are directed toward the same abstract idea of the independent claims that are grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A Analysis – Prong Two:
Claims 1 and 9 are not integrated into practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined portions presented in prong one – in this case, the processing circuitry, natural language processing, and electronic medical record system of Claim 1 and the natural language processing and electronic medical record system of Claim 9) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component. For example, Applicant’s specification explains that the processing circuitry 350 is a processor that reads and executes a computer program from the storage 340, and implements the function corresponding to each computer program (see applicant’s specification, page 6). Furthermore, the natural language processing amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer algorithm. For example, Applicant’s specification explains that the comparison target acquisition function 353 identifies the content indicated by the first character string, by performing natural language processing on the first character string (Applicant’s specification, p. 10). More specifically, the processing target acquisition function 352 acquires one or more pieces of medical treatment information that satisfy the conditions set by the condition setting function 351, from the electronic medical record system 10 (p. 9). Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the idea. Therefore, Claims 1 and 9 are directed to an abstract idea without practical application.
Dependent Claims 2-8 and 11-12 also recite additional elements. Claim 2 recites the previously recited element of the processing circuitry and specifies the circuitry sets the specified condition in the medical treatment information and acquires the first character string from each of the pieces of the medical treatment information that satisfies the set condition. Claim 3 recites the previously recited element of the processing circuitry and specifies the circuitry acquires the at least one second character string from the medical information based on the content indicated by the first character string. Claim 4 recites a the previously recited processing circuitry and a new additional element of a database and specifies the database contains medical information. Claim 5 recites the previously recited element of the processing circuitry and specifies the circuitry acquires a second string from a second item that is different from the first item and determines whether the content of the first is consistent with the second string. Claim 6 recites the previously recited element of the processing circuitry and specifies the circuitry displays at least one input candidate. Claim 7 recites the previously recited element of the processing circuitry and specifies the circuitry acquires a second character string from pieces of the medical information that is different from the medical treatment information and displays the candidate based on the second character string. Claim 8 recites the previously recited element of the processing circuitry and specifies the circuitry receives an input of the first character string and acquires a second character string from a second item that is different from the first item of the medical treatment information and displays each of the candidates based on each of the second character strings. Claim 11 recites the previously recited processing circuitry and new additional elements of an electronic medical records server and a memory for storing the medical treatment and medical information as well as the previously recited processing circuitry, specifying that the circuitry acquires the first and second string from the memory/server. Claim 12 recites the previously recited processing circuitry and a new additional element of a graphical user interface (GUI) and specifies that the GUI displays the input candidate.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claims, when considered individually or in combination, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed with respect to step 2A prong two, the additional elements of the processing circuitry and electronic medical record system of Claim 1 and the electronic medical record system of Claim 9 amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in step 2B. Also, as discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the natural language processing of Claims 1 and 9 is also recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using generic computer algorithm. MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, even in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. For these reasons, the independent Claims 1 and 9 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claim 10 further narrows the abstract idea and does not provide an inventive concept or additional element. Claim 10 narrows the abstract idea of Claim 9 by specifying displaying an input candidate based on the second character string determined to be consistent.
Dependent Claims 2-8 recite a previously recited additional element, which are not eligible for the reasons stated above, and further narrow the abstract idea. Claim 2 recites the previous recited processing circuitry and specifies that it sets a condition and acquires strings that meet the condition. Claim 3 recites the additional element of the processing circuitry and specifies that the circuitry acquires the second string based on the content of the first. Claim 5 narrows the additional element of the processing circuitry by specifying that the processing circuitry is configured to acquire a first and second string and determine whether the content is consistent. Claim 6 narrows the additional element of the processing circuitry by specifying that the circuitry is configured to display and input candidate based on the second string determined to be consistent. Claim 7 narrows the additional element of the processing circuitry by specifying that the circuitry is configured to display an input candidate based on the second character string. Claim 8 recites the processing circuitry and specifies that the processing circuitry is configured to receive an input of the first string, acquire a second string, and display an input candidate.
Dependent Claims 4 and 11-12 recite new additional element with new functions. Claim 4 recites a new additional element of a database and specifies the database contains medical information. Claim 11 recites new additional elements of an electronic medical records server and a memory for storing the medical treatment and medical information as well as the previously recited processing circuitry, specifying that the circuitry acquires the first and second string from the memory/server. Claim 12 recites a new additional element of a graphical user interface (GUI) and specifies that the GUI displays the input candidate. Hence, Claims 2-8 and 10-12 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea above. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything to what is already present when looking at the elements individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide a conventional computer implementation.
Thus, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landi et al. (US 20130046558 A1) in view of Long et al. (CN 111178049 A), Kano et al. (US 20200075142 A1), and Bellin et al. (US 20050216312 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Landi discloses the following limitations:
A medical information processing apparatus, comprising: processing circuitry configured to: (Landi discloses the machine may be implemented on a computer platform having hardware such as one or more central processing units (CPU),… [0049]. Processor 102 of processing system 100 may extract information from the structured CPR database 380, for identifying inconsistent…information about a patient. The processor 102 may be also be coupled to data miner 350, a disease of interest database 412…The information in disease of interest database 412 may include standard procedures, established guidelines for treatments, standardized tests for assessment [0074].)
…for determining consistency; (Landi discloses a portion of the mined medical data may then be compared to another portion of the mined medical data to determine and/or identify inconsistent data [0081].)
acquire, from an electronic medical record system, one or more pieces of medical treatment information about a patient, that satisfy the specified condition; (Landi discloses a method of identifying information in electronic medical records that includes receiving one or more electronic medical records extracted from at least one source. Each of the one or more electronic medical records has medical information of at least one medical patient [0011]. First, as shown in the embodiment at FIG. 4, medical information in patient medical record 310 is assembled during the course of treatment of a patient over time [0077]. The domain knowledge base 330 may include domain-specific criteria specific to a condition of interest (e.g. a disease such as cancer, symptoms and whether the patient is a smoker), billing information and institution-specific knowledge [0068].)
acquire, one or more first character strings contenting contents indicating periods…contained in the medical treatment information; (Landi discloses the analyzing further includes comparing first data that is associated with a first portion of the mined data [0027]. The system also includes at least one extracting device configured to extract data from the patient medical data, a structured data source configured to include at least one of: (i) structured data extracted from the electronic patient medical record and (ii) unstructured data extracted from the electronic patient medical record and converted to structured data [0035]. The extraction component 352 may extract pieces of information at a particular time. The information of interest may include a state sequence (i.e., the value of the patient state at different points in time during the patient’s treatment) [0067].)
…from subjective information as claimed by the patient and objective information as viewed by a health care professional… (Landi discloses structured data may include patient information inputted into pre-defined fields as well as clinical, financial, laboratory databases. The state may provide an indication of whether a medical concept is indicated in the one or more patient records. The state may be whether a disease, condition, symptom, or test result is indicated [0057]. The symptom data is interpreted as subjective information, and test result is interpreted as objective information.)
acquire, one or more second character strings matching with the periods indicated by the contents contained in the first character strings from medical information (Landi discloses the analyzing further includes…determining data in a second portion of the different portions of data as data corresponding to the one or more medical concepts [0013]. The analyzing further includes comparing data that is associated with a first portion of the different portions of data to data that is associated with a second portion of the data [0012]. The extraction component 352 may extract pieces of information from each data source regarding a patient, which are represented as probabilistic assertions (elements) about the patient at a particular time. The combination component 354 may combine each of the elements that refer to the same variable at the same time period [0067].)
determine, using natural language processing, whether a content indicated by the first character string is consistent with a content indicated by the at least one second character string, (Landi discloses the processing system 100 may interpret data (e.g. words and terms) in different portions of the mined medical data via algorithms (e.g. natural language algorithms) and convert unstructured data to salient pieces of information in structured data fields. Mined data of a patient’s medical record may be analyzed at different levels (e.g. sentence, paragraph, document and patient record). A portion of the mined medical data may then be compared to another portion of the mined medical data to determine and/or identify inconsistent data [0081].)
….in response to determining that the content indicated by the first character string is inconsistent with the content indicated by the at least one second character string. (Landi discloses a portion of the mined medical data may then be compared to another portion of the mined medical data to determine and/or identify inconsistent …data [0081]. The system may provide an alert 420 responsive to the identified inconsistent…data. The alert may be aural or provided on a display to an individual or entity via network interface 114 and/or I/O interface 110 [0099].)
the specific information including …and an item code specifying an item including the first character string. (Landi discloses the method further includes data mining the medical information from a first computerized patient record and a second computerized patient record using the domain-specific criteria in the domain knowledge base [0018]. The processor 102 may generate data for the model by mining data of similar patients…[0080].)
Landi does not disclose outputting the location of the string which is met by Long:
and output specific information specifying a location of the first character string, (Long teaches a system and method which includes a recognition model to identify the first error information in the first text information to generate the first position information corresponding to the first error information; when the identification model to identify first error characters in the first text information, and the first error character is determined as the first error information; sequence code to generate each character corresponding to the first character sequence in the first text information, and sends the first character in the sequence, error character corresponding to the first marker is the first error sequence code; the mark after the first error sequence code of the first character sequence, determining the first location information corresponding to the first error information (page 2, ¶ 0008-0011).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods for identifying information related to a patient’s medical records from multiple sources and comparing portions of data to determine if data sets match and find inconsistencies as disclosed by Landi to incorporate the outputting of the location of any identified errors as taught by Long. This modification would create a system which not only validates the data input by medical personnel for accuracy, but also points out the inaccuracies found and where they are so that they might be efficiently adjusted within the medical records (see Long, p. 2, ¶ 0002).
Landi and Long do not teach the following limitations met by Kano:
set a condition to specify medical treatment information to be processed… (Kano teaches the acquisition function 611 is a function of acquiring desired information from the HIS 2, the RIS 3, the medical image diagnosis apparatus 4, and the PACS 5. More specifically, with the acquisition function 611, the processing circuitry 61 acquires, for example, preset information in a preset cycle from the HIS 2,…[0043].)
in which date and time of a test… (Kano teaches a sequence using event dates and the like associated with medical treatment events for each patient,…An event date is, for example, a date at which a medical treatment event has occurred or a date at which a medical treatment event is scheduled. Event dates include, for example, the execution date of an image examination, the execution date of a specimen examination, the measurement date of an electrocardiographic waveform, the measurement date of a vital sign,…[0045]. The measurements and examinations are interpreted as tests. The acquisition function 111 is a function of acquiring,…patient identification information for identifying a patient corresponding to the occurrence of an event as an index for determination in a medical treatment and time information representing the time associated with the event. Time information is represented by, for example, a year, a month, a date, or a date and time [0059].)
the specific information including a patient code specifying the patient of the medical treatment information… (Kano teaches the processing circuitry acquires patient identification information for identifying a patient in whom an event as a determination index in a medical treatment has occurred and time information… [0027]. The processing circuitry 11 executes the acquisition function 111 to read out an acquisition condition stored in the memory 14 based on an input via the input interface 12 and acquire a plurality of event information concerning events for each patient from the log information 621 stored in the memory 62 of the DWH 6. Each record included in each of a plurality of pieces of acquired event information includes, as items, for example,…patient ID (patient identification information) [0059]. The Examiner interprets the patient identification information stored in memory as the patient code specifying the patient.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods for identifying information related to a patient’s medical records from multiple sources and comparing portions of data to determine if data sets match and find inconsistencies as disclosed by Landi to incorporate the use of a date and time information corresponding with medical information and patient code with patient specifying information as taught by Kano. This modification would create a system and method which allows users to improve efficiency of treatments as doctors can easily utilize medical treatment information about a patient (see Kano, ¶ 0003, 0005).
Landi, Long, and Kano do not teach the using the date and time to associate a test with a result which is met by Bellin:
medical information in which date and time of a test and a test result of the same patient as the patient of the medical treatment information are associated; (Bellin teaches the invention can correlate treatment, resulting outcomes, e.g., long-term effect or other outcome, or other epidemiology data, and provide, preferably on a real time basis, …[0014]. Determining a time period for evaluating the patient, the time period having intervals; performing laboratory tests on the patient to obtain test values, so that each interval has associated therewith an outcome value corresponding to either a test value obtained during that interval or a derived value derived from test values obtained at times…(Claim 39).)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods for identifying information related to a patient’s medical records from multiple sources and comparing portions of data to determine if data sets match and find inconsistencies as disclosed by Landi to incorporate a time being associated with a test and test result as taught by Bellin. This modification would create a system and method which can help provide safe and effective health care for all its patients, and that the collective experience of similar patients may be mined continuously to discover opportunities to improve efficiency, safety, and effectiveness of health care (see Bellin, ¶ 0003).
Regarding Claim 9, this claim is substantially similar to those recited in Claim 1 above; thus, the same rejection applies. Landi further discloses:
A consistency determination method (Landi discloses a method of identifying information…which includes comparing different portions of the data in the medical information [0011].)
Regarding Claim 2, Landi, Long, Kano, and Bellin teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Landi further discloses the following limitations:
the processing circuitry is further configured to… and acquire the first character string from each of one or more pieces of the medical treatment information… information that satisfy (Landi discloses the mining includes using a domain knowledge base to scan the electronic patient record for a disease or condition of interest. In another embodiment, the analyzing to identify further includes matching any similar terms or phrases from the structured patient record [0029]. The extraction component 352 may extract pieces of information from each data source regarding a patient…[0068]. Data associated with a first portion of the mined medical data…[0082].)
Landi and Long do not teach setting the specified condition which is met by Kano:
set the specified condition in the medical treatment information, and acquire… medical…information that satisfy the set condition (Kano teaches the processing circuitry 11 executes the acquisition function 111 to read out an acquisition condition stored in the memory [0059]. Acquisition conditions are based on, for example, predetermined rules [0055]. Assume also that with regard to the patient with patient ID “00000002”, the date that satisfies acquisition condition “a daily urine output should be 400 ml or less” is “Apr. 15, 2017”, and the urine output obtained at the date is “400 ml” [0066]. The Examiner interprets the acquisition conditions as being a set specified condition.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods for identifying information related to a patient’s medical records from multiple sources and comparing portions of data to determine if data sets match and find inconsistencies as disclosed by Landi to incorporate the circuitry setting a condition and information that satisfies the condition as taught by Kano. This modification would create a system and method which quickly accesses the proper data for efficient treatment (see Kano, ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 3, Landi, Long, Kano, and Bellin teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Landi further discloses the following:
the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire the at least one second character string from the medical information specified based on the content indicated by the first character string. (Landi discloses data that is associated with a first portion of the mined medical data may be compared to data associated with a second portion of the mined medical data to identify data as inconsistent and/or duplicate data. In some aspects, data that is associated with a portion of the mined medical data may include medical concepts corresponding to the mined medical data. The data corresponding to the medical concepts and/or the corresponding medical concepts may then be compared to identify the data as inconsistent and/or duplicate data [0082].)
Regarding Claim 4, Landi, Long, Kano, and Bellin teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Landi further discloses the following:
the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire the at least one second character string from the medical information contained in a database specified based on the content indicated by the first character string. (Landi discloses the method further includes accessing a database having a plurality of electronic medical records. Each medical record corresponds to one of a plurality of patients. The method further includes populating a plurality of data fields in the structured data with information corresponding to one of the plurality of patients [0023]. Further, the processing system 100 may include an extraction device, separate from processor 102 that extracts information from at least one of the structured CPR database 380, data miner 350, domain knowledge base 330 and disease of interest database 412 [0074]. Processor 102 of processing system 100 may extract information from the structured CPR database 380, for identifying inconsistent and/or duplicate information about a patient [0074].)
Regarding Claim 5, Landi, Long, Kano, and Bellin teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Landi further discloses the following:
the processing circuitry is further configured to: acquire the first character string from a first item of the medical treatment information; (Landi discloses the analyzing further includes comparing data that is associated with a first portion of the different portions of data to data that is associated with a second portion of the data [0012].)
acquire the at least one second character string from a second item that is different from the first item of the medical information; (Landi discloses the analyzing further includes determining data in a first portion of the different portions of data as data corresponding to one or more medical concepts, determining data in a second portion of the different portions of data as data corresponding to the one or more medical concepts, attributing a first value to the one or more medical concepts in the first portion, attributing a second value to the one or more medical concepts in the second portion and comparing the first value to the second value [0013].)
and determine whether the content indicated by the first character string obtained from the first item is consistent with the content indicated by the at least one second character string obtained from the second item. (Landi discloses for example, values may be assigned to a first occurrence of a medical concept and a second occurrence of the medical concept. Processing system 100 may then determine whether the values assigned to the first occurrence and the second occurrence are the same [0086].)
Regarding Claim 6, Landi, Long, and Kano teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Landi further discloses the following:
the processing circuitry is further configured to display at least one input candidate based on the at least one second character string determined to be consistent. (Landi discloses the system further includes at least one system configured to analyze the structured data source for at least one of (i) inconsistent data and (ii) duplicate data and at least one display for outputting the results of the analysis of the structured data source [0035]. Embodiments of the present invention include presenting (e.g. displaying) the identified duplicate and/or inconsistent information and providing alerts to an individual or entity responsive to the identified… inconsistent information [0045].)
While Landi discloses that the system displays identified inconsistent strings, and Claim 6 discloses the display of consistent items, the switch from displaying inconsistencies to consistencies would be “Obvious to try” and yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 7, Landi, Long, Kano, and Bellin teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 6 above. Landi further discloses the following:
the processing circuitry is further configured to: acquire the at least one second character string from one or more pieces of the medical information that is different from the medical treatment information, based on the content indicated by the first character string; (Landi discloses determining data in a second portion of the different portions of data as data corresponding to the one or more medical concepts, attributing a first value to the one or more medical concepts in the first portion, attributing a second value to the one or more medical concepts in the second portion and comparing the first value to the second value [0013]. The data collected for the section portion of data is from a different data source but has corresponding concepts to that of the first portion, meaning the second string is based on the first string. Further, data that is associated with a portion of the mined medical data may include medical concepts corresponding to the mined medical data. The data corresponding to the medical concepts and/or the corresponding medical concepts may then be compared to identify the data as inconsistent and/or duplicate data. Medical concepts may include any medical concepts Such as congestive heart failure, cardiomyopathy, cancer, smoking or any intervention [0082].)
and display each of the at least one input candidate based on each of the at least one second character string. (Landi discloses the system further includes at least one system configured to analyze the structured data source for at least one of (i) inconsistent data and (ii) duplicate data and at least one display for outputting the results of the analysis of the structured data source [0035]. Embodiments of the present invention include presenting (e.g. displaying) the identified duplicate and/or inconsistent information and providing alerts to an individual or entity responsive to the identified duplicate and/ or inconsistent information [0045].)
Regarding Claim 8, Landi, Long, Kano, and Bellin teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 6 above. Landi further discloses the following:
the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive an input of the first character string for a first item of the medical treatment information; (Landi discloses embodiments of the present invention are directed to a method of identifying information in electronic medical records that includes receiving one or more electronic medical records extracted from at least one source. Each of the one or more electronic medical records has medical information of at least one medical patient [0011]. The system also includes at least one extracting device configured to extract data from the patient medical data [0035]. The receiving further includes receiving the extracted medical information from a group comprising computed tomography (CT) images, X-ray images, laboratory test results, doctor progress notes, medical procedures, prescription drug information, radiological reports, specialist reports, financial information, demographic information and billing information [0016]. Further, first data in a first portion of the mined data as corresponding to one or more medical concepts [0028].)
acquire the at least one second character string from a second item that is different from the first item of the medical treatment information; (Landi discloses the analyzing further includes determining data in a first portion of the different portions of data as data corresponding to one or more medical concepts, determining data in a second portion of the different portions of data as data corresponding to the one or more medical concepts, attributing a first value to the one or more medical concepts in the first portion, attributing a second value to the one or more medical concepts in the second portion and comparing the first value to the second value [0013].)
and display each of the input candidate based on each of the at least one second character strings. (Landi discloses the system further includes at least one system configured to analyze the structured data source for at least one of (i) inconsistent data and (ii) duplicate data and at least one display for outputting the results of the analysis of the structured data source [0035]. Embodiments of the present invention include presenting (e.g. displaying) the identified duplicate and/or inconsistent information and providing alerts to an individual or entity responsive to the identified duplicate and/ or inconsistent information [0045].)
Regarding Claim 10, Landi, Long, Kano, and Bellin teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 9 above. Landi further discloses the following:
displaying an input candidate based on the second character string determined to be consistent. (Landi discloses the system further includes at least one system configured to analyze the structured data source for at least one of (i) inconsistent data and (ii) duplicate data and at least one display for outputting the results of the analysis of the structured data source [0035]. Embodiments of the present invention include presenting (e.g. displaying) the identified duplicate and/or inconsistent information and providing alerts to an individual or entity responsive to the identified duplicate and/ or inconsistent information [0045].)
Landi discloses that the system displays identified inconsistent strings, whereas Claim 10 discloses the display of consistent items. However, the switch from displaying inconsistencies to consistencies would be “Obvious to try” and yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding Claim 11, Landi, Long, and Kano teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Landi further discloses the following:
a medical information system comprising the medical information processing apparatus of Claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above).
an electronic medical records server including an electronic memory storing the medical treatment information and the medical information, (Landi discloses the server may include a web server, a minicomputer, a mainframe computer, a personal computer, a mobile computing device, or any such device [0059]. The external storage 114 may be implemented using a database management system managed by the processor 102 and residing on a memory such as a hard disk [0054]. The method further includes storing updated medical information corresponding to a disease of interest [0024]. A computerized patient record (CPR) may be used to store patient information…may include information that is collected over the course of a patient’s treatment [0063].)
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire the first character string and the at least one second character string from the electronic memory of the electronic medical records server. (Landi discloses a computerized patient record (CPR) may be used to store patient information [0063]. CPR 200 may include information from a plurality of sources…free text, images,… natural language information from a professional ASCII text strings [0064]. This is the patient data that is examined for consistency.)
Regarding Claim 12, Landi, Long, Kano, and Bellin teach the limitations as shown in the rejection of Claim 6 above. Landi further discloses the following:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display each of the at least one input candidate in a graphical user interface (GUI), (Landi discloses analyzing, via a processor, the mined data to identify at least one of: (i) inconsistent medical data from the mined data;…[0026]. The mined data is the data that is compared and then displayed. Embodiments of the present invention include presenting (e.g. displaying) the identified duplicate and/or inconsistent information and providing alerts to an individual or entity responsive to the identified… inconsistent information [0045]. The system 100 includes at least one processor…a non-volatile storage device 106,… a display device 118 [0051]. A display device utilizes a GUI.)
and store the…particular input candidate in [the medical treatment information] an electronic medical record system. (Landi discloses the processor 102 may output a patient state, identified data and/or associated information on the display 118, into a memory, such as storage device 106,…[0057]. The mined information may be stored in a structured CPR [computerized patient record] database 380. Structured CPR database 380 may include structured data and unstructured data converted into a structured format [0071].)
Landi and Long do not teach the selection from a user of a candidate which is met by Kano:
receive selection, via the GUI by an operator, of a particular input candidate of the at least one input candidate displayed in the GUI, (Kano teaches the processing circuitry 11 displays, for example, a plurality of areas that enables the selection of character strings representing acquisition condition candidates in a pull-down form on the display 13, and receives the designation of an acquisition condition concerning a plurality of types of events [0127].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods for identifying information related to a patient’s medical records from multiple sources and comparing portions of data to determine if data sets match and find inconsistencies as disclosed by Landi to incorporate the user selecting a candidate as taught by Kano. This modification would create a system and method which quickly accesses the proper data for efficient treatment (see Kano, ¶ 0005).
Relevant Prior Art of Record Not Currently Being Applied
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Lucas et al. (US 11532397 B2) teaches a system and method for receiving an image of a medical document, extracting medical information, and summarizing what was listed in an electronic form.
Cao et al. (CN 110032920 A) teaches a character identification method and apparatus which locates an electronic document to analyze, determines the character string to be matched, and uses a character matching recognition method to match corresponding character strings.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the objection to Claim 9, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment; therefore, the objection has been withdrawn.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) to Claims 1-12, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments; therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 to Claims 1-12, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated in light of the latest amendments.
Applicant argues the independent claims are directed to a practical application that provides a technical improvement in the operation of a medical information processing apparatus. The processing circuitry is configured to set conditions to specify medical treatment information to be processed, to acquire only the medical treatment information that satisfies those conditions, and to determine consistency only between first character strings acquired from the selected medical treatment information and second character strings corresponding to those first character strings [0034 and 0058 of Specification]. Without these constraints, the processor would be forced to analyze large volumes of patient data across many fields and records, resulting in an extremely high processing load and significant consumption of memory resources (p. 1-2 of Applicant’s Remarks).
Regarding (a), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended limitations to the independent claims only serve to further narrow the previously established abstract idea. Furthermore, efficiency is not enough to amount to a practical application via an improvement to computer or technology under Step 2A Prong 2 (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: ii. accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) (also see MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) stating “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not provide an inventive concept (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015)”), and, thus, the combination of the generic computer components do not provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces; note this is applied to Step 2B as well as Step 2A Prong 2).
Further, Examiner notes that reducing processing load and consumption of memory resources is not identified as a technical problem being solved by the claimed invention in the specification.
Applicant argues the independent claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a targeted processing configuration that meaningfully limits and structures the system's operations. The claims require the processor to acquire first character strings only when they contain contents indicating periods and only from the subjective and objective portions of the medical treatment information, and to acquire second character strings only when they match the periods indicated by the first character strings and only from medical information in which test results and their associated date/time are linked for the same patient. See, e.g., Specification paragraphs [0022] and [0037]. Furthermore, restricting the acquisition targets in this manner prevents the search space from expanding beyond the intended range, thereby reducing both processor load and memory usage (p. 2).
Regarding (b), Examiner respectfully disagrees. The steps of acquiring character strings only when they contain contents indicating periods are not recited as being performed by the processor in the claims. Further all of the limitations cited above would not be evaluated in Step 2A Prong 2 for integrating the abstract idea into a practical application of Step 2B for “significantly more” than the abstract idea because the entire limitation is a part of the abstract idea identified in Step 2A Prong 1.
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art (MPEP § 2106.05(a)).
Applicant argues the claimed subject matter recites a technical mechanism for data acquisition and comparison that improves the functioning of the apparatus itself, rather than merely performing an abstract idea on generic components. The independent claims therefore apply the alleged abstract idea in a meaningful way that achieves a concrete technical benefit, namely, reducing computational and memory demands during consistency determination across medical records. As in Enfish and McRO, the claims integrate the judicial exception into a specific practical application and are thus directed to patent eligible subject matter under Step 2A, Prong Two (p. 2-3).
Regarding (c), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Here, the claims do not show how the processing circuitry of the apparatus improve on the functioning of the apparatus itself. On review of the Specification, the present invention appears to utilize a generic computer processor and natural language processing to execute an abstract idea (Detailed Description in ¶ 0031). It is unclear to Examiner how the specific additional elements, alone or in combination, provide a solution to the stated problem in context of the abstract idea of detecting a deviation in expected operation of the medical device. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art (MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Additionally, an important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03 (MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II)). The instant claims seem analogous to MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II) examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology, example iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.
Further, the claims of the instant invention are not analogous to the invention of Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., because Enfish claimed features which were not conventional and therefore were considered to reflect an improvement to technology. Conversely, there is no real improvement to technology recited in the instant claims.
Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 to Claims 1-12, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive regarding the newly added limitations not being taught by Landi, Long, and Kano. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds for rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments is made, rejecting the claims over Landi in view of Long, Kano, and Bellin.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA R GEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0944. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am-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, Peter H Choi can be reached on (469)295-9171. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OLIVIA R. GEDRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681