CTNF 18/353,135 CTNF 82717 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Notice to Applicant Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 27, 2026 has been entered. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims Claims 1, 14, 16, and 18 have been amended. Claims 2, 7-13, 10, 15, and 17 have been canceled. Claim 19 is new. Now, Claims 1, 3-6, 14, 16, 18, and 19 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 2. 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. 3. Claims 1, 3-6, 14, 16, 18, and 19 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. Claims 1, 3-6, 14, 16, 18, and 19 are directed to medical information processing for a patient, which is considered managing personal behavior. Managing personal behaviors fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and do not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). Under step 1 of the Alice / Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory classes of invention. In the instant case, claims 1, 3-6, 18, and 19 recite a device comprising processing circuitry. Claim 14 recites a method and at least one step. Claim 16 recites a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium. Therefore, the claims are each directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention (manufacture, process, apparatus). Under step 2A of the Alice / Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are “directed to” an abstract idea. That is, whether the claims recite an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Regarding independent claim 1, the claim sets forth a medical information processing device, in the following limitations: acquire a first attribute factor group which is a plurality of attribute factors relating to a disease of a target patient and which is a plurality of attribute factors at a first timing which is before treatment was applied on the target patient; estimate a second attribute factor group which is a plurality of attribute factors at a second timing after the first timing on the basis of the first attribute factor group, the second timing being a timing after the treatment was applied on the target patient; and output information including the first attribute factor group and the second attribute factor group before the second timing, wherein further configured to; estimate the second attribute factor group on the basis of temporal changes in a third attribute factor group which is a plurality of attribute factors relating to a disease of other patients who were applied the treatment scheduled for the target patient, generate a comparison diagram of the first attribute factor group for the target patient which is expected to be obtained in case that pre-habilitation is performed at the first timing and the first attribute factor group for the target patient which is expected to be obtained in case that pre-habilitation is not performed at the first timing, and output the comparison diagram. The above-recited limitations establish medical information processing for a patient, which is considered managing personal behavior. Managing personal behaviors fall within a subject matter grouping of abstract ideas which the Courts have considered ineligible (Certain methods of organizing human activity). Such concepts have been considered ineligible certain methods of organizing human activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)). Claim 1 does recite additional elements: via an output interface, processing circuitry. These additional elements merely amount to the general application of the abstract idea to a technological environment (“via an output interface”, “processing circuitry”,) and insignificant pre-and-post solution activity (acquiring, estimating outputting, generating). The specification makes clear the general-purpose nature of the technological environment. Paragraphs 32, 37, 46, 129, and 187 indicate that while exemplary general purpose systems may be specific for descriptive purposes, any elements or combinations of elements capable of implementing the claimed invention are acceptable. That is, the technology used to implement the invention is not specific or integral to the claim. Therefore, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. That is, given the generality with which the additional limitations are recited, the limitations do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. Additionally, the claims do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and is therefore “directed to” the abstract idea. Under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must finally be considered whether the claim includes any additional element or combination of elements that provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional element or elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). As indicated above, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, the additional elements do not implement the abstract idea with, or use the abstract idea in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea Further, the additional elements (recited above) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Communicating information (i.e., receiving or transmitting data over a network) has been repeatedly considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity by the Courts (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the additional elements, considered both individually, and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept, and the claim is ineligible for patent. Independent Claims 14 and 16 are parallel in scope to claim 1 and ineligible for similar reasons. Dependent claims Each of these steps of the dependent claims 3-6, 18, and 19 only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claim 1 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner. Regarding Claim 3 Claim 3 sets forth: wherein the treatment on the target patient is decided on the basis of treatment results of other patient groups suffering from the same disease as the target patient. Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of medical information processing for a patient, including managing human behaviors. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 4. 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. 5. The rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9, and 11-18 as being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by United States Patent Number 9,536,051, Kabir, et al., hereinafter Kabir in view of United States Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0319894, Sobol, et al., hereinafter Sobol is hereby withdrawn pursuant to the amendments filed on April 27, 2026. Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA 22. Applicant's arguments filed April 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. A. Applicant argues that claim 1 is not directed to a mental process and that the elements of Claim 1, 14, and 16 recite significantly more than a practical application and that claim 5 represents even further additional features that provide a concrete solution to the problem of dealing with a large number of attribute factors relating to the examination treatment of certain diseases. In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As explained above, the claims set forth acquiring data, estimating a user’s health based on treatment scheduled for the target patient and/or comparing attribute factors of a patient group having an improved treatment outcome, for the purpose of solving “selecting treatment strategies that improve outcomes.” (see page 1, line 25 of the filed Specification). The Examiner asserts that acquiring data, estimating a user’s health based on treatment scheduled for the target patient and/or comparing attribute factors of a patient group having an improved treatment outcome are clearly analogous to managing human behavior. That features are recited relating to computer technologies does not negate such a conclusion. Accordingly, such arguments are not persuasive. The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and does not include additional elements that provide an inventive concept (are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea). (Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The claims do not recite any unconventional computer functions. There are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, and the claims are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is silent on any computer operation and specific technological implementation that would move the claim beyond a general link to a technological environment. Further, in order for an alleged application of an abstract idea to be considered eligible, it must amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e., pass step 2B of the Mayo test). As shown in the rejection above, the claims set forth receiving, analyzing, outputting data, estimating a user’s health based on treatment scheduled for the target patient and/or comparing attribute factors of a patient group having an improved treatment outcome, for the purpose of solving “selecting treatment strategies that improve outcomes.” (see page 1, line 25 of the filed Specification). Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible. With regard to claim 5, these limitations only serve to further limit or specify the features of independent claim 1 accordingly, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as the independent claim and utilize the additional elements already analyzed in the expected manner. Such a recitation merely embellishes the abstract idea of medical information processing for a patient, including managing human behaviors. Accordingly, the claim does not confer eligibility on the claimed invention and is ineligible for similar reasons to claim 1. Accordingly, it does not amount to significantly more, and the application of the abstract idea is therefore not eligible . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. MEDICAL EXAMINATION ASSISTANCE APPARATUS, OPERATION METHOD OF MEDICAL EXAMINATION ASSISTANCE APPARATUS, AND MEDICAL EXAMINATION ASSISTANCE SYSTEM (US 20180025117 A1) teaches An acquisition unit acquires comparative cases, which are medical examination data having the same clinical path as the medical examination target patient, from an electronic medical record DB. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBER ALTSCHUL MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)270-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM. 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, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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. /AMBER A MISIASZEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/353,135 Page 2 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/353,135 Page 3 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/353,135 Page 4 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/353,135 Page 5 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/353,135 Page 6 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/353,135 Page 7 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/353,135 Page 8 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/353,135 Page 9 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/353,135 Page 10 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/353,135 Page 11 Art Unit: 3682 Application/Control Number: 18/353,135 Page 12 Art Unit: 3682
Prosecution Insights