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 .
Claims 1-9 and 11 have been amended. Claim 10 has been cancelled. Claims 1-9 and 11 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “New York Heart Associate” which should be “New York Heart Association.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 11 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 1-9 are drawn to a system for medical care assistance which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claim 11 is drawn to a “non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program” which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., manufacture).
Claim 1 (Group I) recite a medical care assistance system comprising:
a storage storing a table including, in association with each other, exercise content for a plurality of exercises, a minimum exercise intensity of each of the plurality of exercises, and an estimated New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification of each of the plurality of exercises (MPEP § 2106.05(f,g), apply it and insignificant extra-solution activity); and
a processor configured to (MPEP § 2106.05(f), apply it):
obtain, using the table, configured to obtain a minimum exercise intensity that is an exercise intensity of an exercise having the smallest exercise intensity among exercises that make a symptom related to a disease of medical care target for a patient to appear within a first predetermined period;
obtain, using the table, based on the minimum exercise intensity, estimated severity information indicating estimated severity of a disease of the patient;
generate a medical care assistance image including an estimated severity time series graph indicating, as a time axis, a second predetermined period that is a past predetermined period including the first predetermined period, and
indicating, along the time axis, an estimated severity display bar such that the estimated severity information of a period is identifiably characteristically displayed for each of the first predetermined period or an alternative first predetermined period that is a period alternative to the first predetermined period; and
output the medical care assistance image.
The bolded limitations, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mathematical concept and/or a certain method of organizing human activity because it recites mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and/or mathematical calculations and fundamental economic practices, commercial or legal interactions, and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Any limitations not identified above as part of abstract idea are underlined and are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent Claims 2-11 include other limitations, for example Claim 2 recites acquiring symptom appearing exercise information which is information including a content of exercise that caused a symptom related to the disease to appear, and calculate the minimum exercise intensity based on the symptom appearing exercise information, Claim 3 recites acquiring information regarding the presence or absence of the symptom related to the disease of the patient for each third predetermined period, and generating the medical care assistance image displaying, along the time axis, information regarding the presence or absence of the symptom for each of the third predetermined periods, Claim 4 recites wherein in the estimated severity time series graph, a length of a period indicated by one of the estimated severity display bars has the third predetermined period as a minimum value, Claim 5 recites an automatic medical interview terminal configured to execute an automatic medical interview processing of requesting the patient to input patient information including at least the symptom appearing exercise information of the patient within the most recent first predetermined period, wherein the processor is further configured to acquire the symptom appearing exercise information input from the patient through an automatic medical interview processing executed in the automatic medical interview terminal, Claim 6 recites wherein when an interval of inputs between two or more inputs of the symptom appearing exercise information performed by the patient exceeds the first predetermined period, the processor is further configured to display the estimated severity display bar with a length of the first predetermined period backward from a timing at which a subsequent input of the symptom appearing exercise information is performed, Claim 7 recites wherein when an interval of inputs between two or more inputs of the symptom appearing exercise information performed by the patient is shorter than the first predetermined period, the processor is further configured to set the interval as the alternative first predetermined period, and displays the estimated severity display bar with a length of the alternative first predetermined period backward from a timing at which a subsequent input of the symptom appearing exercise information is performed, Claim 8 recites wherein the processor is further configured to generate the medical care assistance image in that the estimated severity display bar is displayed in color-coded manner according to the estimated severity information and text information related to the minimum exercise intensity and/or the estimated severity information of the patient in the first predetermined period is indicated by superimposing on the estimated severity display bar or in the vicinity of the estimated severity display bar, and Claim 9 recites wherein the disease of medical care target is heart failure, and the estimated severity information is assumed to be New York Heart Association classification, but these only serve to further limit the abstract idea, and hence are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent Claim 1.
Furthermore, Claims 1-9 and 11 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of a storage and a processor, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraphs [0012] and [0030] of the present Specification, see MPEP 2106.05(f);
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea – for example, the recitation of storing data, which amounts to an insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Furthermore, the Claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because, the additional elements (i.e. the elements other than the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
paragraphs [0012] and [0030] of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. a minimum exercise intensity calculation device, an estimated severity information calculation device, a medical care assistance image generation device, an output device, and a symptom appearing exercise information acquisition device) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare).
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank –similarly, the current invention merely recites the storing of data on a database and/or electronic memory (storage).
Dependent Claims 2-9 and 11 include other limitations, but none of these functions are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because they do not recite any functional additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claim 1 or they simply further limit the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the above-identified abstract idea. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken 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 conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 1-9 and 11 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/26/2025 have been fully considered.
Claim Objections
The previous objection has been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Interpretation under § 112(f)
The previous interpretation under 112(f) is no longer invoked in view of the amendments.
Rejections under § 112(b)
The rejection under 112(b) is withdrawn in view of cancelled claim 10.
Rejections under § 101
Regarding 101, Applicant “submits that using the table’s information, as recited in the claimed invention, reduces the computational load on a computer or improve processing speed (Remarks, page 8).” There is no nexus between the alleged improvement and the instant claims. While the claim uses a storage table, it is not apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art how using a table improves the computer/processor and/or the storage memory itself. Examiner notes that although the improvement does not have to be explicitly recited in the claims or instant disclosure, it must be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1). Here, it is not. Calculating values beforehand and storing them in a table does not improve the computer itself. The improvement, if any, it towards the abstract idea. Specifically, the instant specification states the application “provide[s] a technique for a system related to medical assistance, which is capable of reducing a workload on a medical professional to perform diagnosis including diagnosis about severity of a disease of medical care target for a patient (Paragraph [0030]).” This is not technical in nature, and therefore, even if using the table was a technical solution, it is not solving a technical problem (so it would not result in a practical application).
As such, the claims remain rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter.
Rejections under § 103
The previous prior art rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
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 Rachelle Reichert whose telephone number is (303)297-4782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 MT.
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, Jason Dunham can be reached at (571)272-8109. 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.
/RACHELLE L REICHERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686