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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1, 11, and 20, it is unclear what is meant by “at least one of the medical variables is different from medical variables at a previous time”. It is unclear if this means that the variable value has changed since a previous time, or that the variable itself has been changed and/or replaced with a different variable. Further, the phrase “one of the medical variables at the current time corresponds to a previous state at the previous time” is unclear as whether the value of the variable is the same, or the variables correspond in the sense that they represent the same variable.
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are rejected for reasons of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McGrath et al. (US 2022/0367051 A1).
With respect to claims 1, 11, and 20 McGrath discloses: a plan optimization method and computing apparatus with programming to perform said method (par. [0070]), comprising: obtaining a plurality of medical variables at a current time (intervention application data, 110), wherein at least one of the medical variables is different from medical variables at a previous time (subgroup that did or did not receive intervention, par. [0007]), and one of the medical variables at the current time corresponds to a previous state at the previous time (subject history, par. [0088]); and determining plan information by inputting the medical variables at the current time into a machine learning model (par. [0035]), wherein the plan information comprises at least one subplan information, and each of the subplan information corresponds to at least one treatment manner record at a subsequent time (intervention application likelihood for a subject, par. [0007]).
With respect to claims 2 and 12, McGrath discloses the claimed method wherein the previous time is earlier than the current time (subject history, par. [0088]), and the subsequent time is later than the current time (future, forecasted intervention effect, 191), the machine learning model is a causal graph model (par. [0007]), and determining the plan information comprises: determining causal relationships corresponding to the medical variables at the current time through the causal graph model (par. [0008]), wherein in response to the at least one of the medical variables at the current time being different from the medical variables at the previous time, generating causal relationships different from that corresponding to the previous time through the causal graph model, and accordingly changing a treatment manner record in at least one subplan information corresponding to the previous time (obtaining a differential intervention effect based on intervention application likelihood for the subjects based on individual covariate value sets, par. [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 and 13-19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and to overcome any other relevant rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claims 3, 4, 13, and 14, the cited prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest the steps of: setting a first period belonging to a first probability distribution, wherein the first period is a period between a precondition node and an action node, the precondition node corresponds to an input of the previous state, the action node is configured to trigger an intervention behavior of the causal relationships corresponding to the medical variables, and the intervention behavior is to change the causal relationships corresponding to the medical variables through the causal graph model; setting a second period corresponding to the current time and belonging to a second probability distribution, wherein the second period is a delay of the intervention behavior and corresponds to a period from triggering the intervention behavior to actually executing the intervention behavior; and setting a third period belonging to a third probability distribution, wherein the third period is a period between the action node and an effect node, and the effect node corresponds to an input of a new state at the current time.
With respect to claims 5, 6, 15, and 16, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest: the claimed method wherein determining the causal relationships corresponding to the medical variables at the current time through the causal graph model comprises: setting an intensity matrix, wherein the intensity matrix corresponds to a probability of a state transition of the effect node, an input of the previous state or an input of a new state at the current time corresponds to the state transition, and each of a plurality of elements of the intensity matrix corresponds to an instantaneous rate of the state transition of two states.
With respect to claims 7 and 17, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed method wherein determining the causal relationships corresponding to the medical variables at the current time through the causal graph model comprises: training the causal graph model through a continuous time structural equation model (CTSEM), and determining a causal relationship between a precondition node and an action node, or a causal relationship between the action node and an effect node, wherein the precondition node corresponds to an input of the previous state, the action node is configured to trigger an intervention behavior of causal relationships corresponding to the medical variables, and the effect node corresponds to an input of a new state at the current time.
With respect to claims 8-10 and 18-19, the cited prior art does not appear to disclose or reasonably suggest the steps of: obtaining a medical image; identifying a plurality of objects in the medical image; and grouping the objects according to corresponding treatment effect of the objects to generate a grouping result, wherein the medical variables comprise the grouping result.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK R GAWORECKI whose telephone number is (571)272-8540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-6 PM.
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, DAVID MAKIYA can be reached at 571-272-2273. 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.
/MARK R GAWORECKI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884 28 November 2025