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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The present Office Action is in response to the Request for Continued Examination dated 25 November 2025.
In the amendment dated 25 November 2025, the following occurred: Claims 1, 8, and 9 have been amended.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 25 November 2025 has been entered.
Priority
This application claims priority to JP2023-016138 dated 06 February 2023.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within the independent claim. In particular, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest the specific sequence of: first identifying an abnormal site based on arm swing data and determining whether the abnormal site has worsened or improved over time using video recordings, then determining a candidate disease, then querying the patient to determine the actual disease based on whether the abnormal site was adjudged to have worsened or improved, presenting the query, and then storing the information into an EMR.
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 1-9 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, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claim recites a system, method, and non-transitory computer-readable medium (“CRM”) for abnormal site of a subject on the basis of an image of the subject, which are within a statutory category.
Step 2A1
The limitations of (Claim 8 being representative) calculating a swinging angle of an arm or a shoulder of a subject based on a video of the subject; detecting an abnormal site of the subject based on the calculated swinging angle; judging whether the abnormal site worsened or improved by comparing, in a time series, changes or differences in movements of the abnormal site based on a plurality of videos of the subject; extracting a disease candidate; specifying a query for performing a diagnosing process on the disease candidate based on a judgement result as to whether the abnormal site worsened or improved; presenting the query; and reading an electronic medical record of the subject to record information about at least one of the abnormal site, the disease candidate and the query, as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions) but for recitation of generic computer components. The Examiner notes that Claim 8 is not tied to any particular structure and is thus purely directed to an abstract idea. That is, other than reciting a system and CRM implemented by a computer / processor, the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. The Examiner note that the Specification at Pg. 7, Lns. 22-25 describes the “processing circuitry” of claims 1-7 as a generic computer processor. For example, but for the computer / processor, this claim encompasses a person looking at an image of a person, determining a candidate disease. Formulating a question, and providing the question in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 1 and 9 recite the additional element of a computer and/or processor that implements the identified abstract idea. Again, Claim 8 is purely directed to the identified abstract idea. The computer / processor is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer or components thereof) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer and/or processor to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Claims 2-7 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide as inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Claim(s) 2 merely describe(s) merely describe(s) how/where the candidate disease is extracted. Claim(s) 3 merely describe(s) to whom the query is presented. Claim(s) 4 merely describe(s) adding the query to a questionnaire. Claim(s) 5 merely describe(s) the location of the video. Claim(s) 6 merely describe(s) the abnormal site. Claim(s) 7 merely describe(s) displaying image information.
Response to Arguments
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-9, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
The amended claims do not recite steps that can reasonably be characterized as "managing personal behavior" or operations capable of being performed by a human, as alleged in the Office Action.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims represent a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to (to paraphrase) identify a worsening or improving condition in a patient. The Background of Applicant’s Specification describes this as a human task.
These steps necessarily require computer processing of pixel data, extraction of quantitative motion parameters, and multivideo temporal analysis. A person viewing a video cannot extract numerical swing-angle values, compute movement differences across multiple recordings, or perform deterioration/improvement judgments using quantitative metrics.
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees for several reasons. First, there is no processing of pixel data or extraction of quantitative motion parameters in the claim. Further, a human is certainly capable of analyzing multivideo data and calculating “numerical swing-angle values, comput[ing] movement differences across multiple recordings, or perform[ing] deterioration/improvement judgments using quantitative metrics.” The Examiner notes that none of these items are claimed as to what they must or must not entail.
The Office Action's conclusion that the claims encompass "a person looking at a video and calculating an angle" is inconsistent with the claim language and the Specification, which describe automated feature extraction, scene analysis, and motion evaluation.
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully submits that “automated feature extraction” is not claimed and that a person can most certainly perform scene analysis and motion evaluation, especially given the fact that there is no indication in the claims as to how this analysis/evaluation is performed.
The amended claims further require reading an electronic medical record and recording information about the abnormal site, disease candidate, or query. This feature ties the claimed processing to a specific technological environment and constitutes a meaningful integration of the computed results into the hospital's information-processing infrastructure. This is not a post-solution activity but an inherent part of how the system operates within a clinical workflow of an electronic medical record system.
Regarding (d), the Examiner respectfully submits that accessing and (potentially) recording data in an EMR is part of the abstract idea. Further, this does not provide a practical application or significantly more by any measure in MPEP 2106.
Even if the Examiner were to treat the calculation of swing angles as known technology, the ordered combination of extracting quantitative motion parameters from video, performing multi-video time-series deterioration analysis, generating disease-specific diagnostic queries based on that analysis, and integrating the results into an electronic medical record is not well understood, routine, or conventional. The Examiner has not provided evidence showing otherwise. The rejection instead relies on the assumption that the claims merely use a computer as a tool, which does not reflect the actual technical operations required by the claims.
Regarding (e), the Examiner respectfully disagrees for several reasons. First, the argued “calculation of swing angles…extracting quantitative motion parameters from video, performing multi-video time-series deterioration analysis, generating disease-specific diagnostic queries based on that analysis, and integrating the results into an electronic medical record” is/are part of the abstract idea. They are not additional elements. MPEP 2106.07(a) states “At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B.” As such, well understood, routine, or conventional evidence is not required. Second, Claims 1 and 9 are indeed merely confining the abstract idea to the technological environment of a generic computer. This is stated in the claim. Claim 8 is not even tied to any technological environment and is purely directed to the identified abstract idea.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-9, the Examiner has considered the Applicant’s arguments in light of the present amendments and withdraws the rejection.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Hanina et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2019/0083031) which discloses providing a questionnaire to a patient and recording the patient’s responses. The recorded responses are analyzed to identify a disease or a change in disease.
Rao et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Patent Publication No. 2019/0110754) which discloses a system for using trained monitoring tools to track disorders over time.
Ferrer-Mallol et al. (Patient-led development of digital endpoints and the use of computer vision analysis in assessment of motor function in rare diseases) which discusses predicting progression of motor function loss in muscular dystrophy patients using a computer vision – enabled app.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON S TIEDEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4594. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-4:00pm, off alternate Fridays.
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.
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683