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 .
Acknowledgements
This communication is in response to Remarks filed on 1/02/2026.
Claim 4 is canceled.
Claims 21-22 are new.
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-18, and 20 are amended.
Claims 1-3, 5-22 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-20 have been rejected as follows.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No .18460945, filed on 3/04/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/05/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-3, 5-22 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, 20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites a system and apparatus for displaying medical data.
The limitations of
acquire medical data; calculate, based on the medical data, a feature amount in the medical data for a predetermined period;
[…] display the medical data in a mode according to the calculated feature amount,
wherein the […] is further configured to calculate a number of extracted descriptions as an information amount,
the […] is further configured to classify a respective one of psychosocial items into a plurality of levels by performing a threshold determination on a value of the information amount,
[…] indicating a type of the respective one of the psychosocial items, and […] and display the icon in accordance with the setting or generate a warning sound in accordance with a result of the classifying, and in a case of the icon being selected by a user, the […] is configured to display a medical record associated with a corresponding one of the psychosocial items
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. That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a processing circuit (computer), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the processing circuit and displayer, this claim encompasses a person looking at data, calculating feature amounts and displaying data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. The Examiner notes that certain “method[s] of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). 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, the claim recites the additional element of (claim 1) a processing circuit that implements the identified abstract idea. The processing circuit is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing a generic computer functions of computing, determining, and selecting) 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.
The claim further recites the additional element of set a presence or an absence of a blinking of an icon and a speed of the blinking merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Utilization of the blinking and speed equates to saying “apply it.” MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claim further recites the additional element of a displayer and display controller. The displayer and display controller merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Utilization of the interactive user equates to saying “apply it.” MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 element of using a processing circuit 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”).
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a set a presence or an absence of a blinking of an icon and a speed of the blinking was determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a displayer and display controller was determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims
Claims 2-3, 5-19, 21 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 2, 9 merely describe medical data, processing medical data and displaying medical data. Claim 3 merely describes displaying extracted descriptions. Claim 5-6, 11-14 merely describes calculating information. Claim 7 merely describes a temporal change in parameter related to item to be displayed. Claim 10 merely describes medical information. Claim 15 merely describes specifying a fluctuation. Claim 16 merely describes specify categories for medical data. Claim 17 merely describes categories and displaying of data. Claim 18 merely describes analyzing a correlation between data. Claim 19 merely describes the description information.
Claim 8 also includes the additional element of “a cloud server” which is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing a generic computer functions of computing, determining, and selecting) 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a cloud server 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”). Claim 8 merely describes a cloud server.
Claim 21 also includes the additional element of “terminals” which is not described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a generic computer performing a generic computer functions of computing, determining, and selecting) 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a terminal 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”). Claim 21 merely describes a data input and storing medical records.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-3, 5-9, 12-15, 19-22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 20210104324) in view of Newkirk (US 20200268580) in view of Sorkey (Us 20120004902)
CLAIM 1
Yamazaki teaches A diagnosis support system comprising a processing circuit configured to: (Yamazaki para 30 teaches a diagnosing support apparatus comprising processing circuitry)
acquire medical data; (Yamazaki para 35 teaches acquiring medical information)
calculate, based on the medical data, a feature amount in the medical data for a predetermined period; and (Yamazaki para 35 teaches calculating a change point in the medical information between before and after the change point)
cause a display to display the medical data in a mode according to the calculated feature amount (Yamazaki para 35 teaches displaying the based on change amount)
wherein the processing circuit is further configured to calculate a number of extracted descriptions as an information amount, (Yamazaki para 45-46 teaches an extracting function acquiring intervention information and patient information and description information for intervention and patient information )
the processing circuit is further configured to classify a respective one of psychosocial items into a plurality of levels by performing a threshold determination on a value of the information amount, (Yamazaki para 53 teaches the extracting function extracts a point in time in which a degree of change is larger than a threshold. Para 55 teaches extracting smooth and momentary change points)
[…] indicating a type of the respective one of the psychosocial items, […], in a case of the icon being selected by a user, the processing circuit is configured to display a medical record associated with a corresponding one of the psychosocial items. (Yamazaki para 89 teaches displaying patient information such as NT-proBNP and respiration rate)
Yamazaki does not teach
set a presence or an absence of a blinking of an icon indicating a type of the respective one of the psychosocial items, and a speed of the blinking, and display the icon in accordance with the setting or […], and
Newkirk does teach
set a presence or an absence of a blinking of an icon indicating a type of the respective one of the psychosocial items, and a speed of the blinking, and display the icon in accordance with the setting or […], and (Newkirk para 48 teaches icon blinking and speed indicating operation. Examiner interprets additional limitations as optional due to claim language “or … ”)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the indication as taught by Yamazaki with blinking and speed as taught by Newkirk because it would be beneficial to indicate operation as taught by Newkirk para 48.
Yamazaki in view of Newkirk does not teach
in a case of the icon being selected by a user, the processing circuit is configured to display a medical record associated with a corresponding one of the psychosocial item
Yamazaki in view of Newkirk does not teach
in a case of the icon being selected by a user, the processing circuit is configured to display a medical record associated with a corresponding one of the psychosocial item (Sorkey para 48 teaches a user selecting an icon to display)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the display as taught by Yamazaki with selecting an icon by the user as taught by Sorkey because it would be beneficial to reduce numerous clicks, screen touches and increase operator efficiency and reduce operator fatigue as taught by Sorkey para 3.
CLAIM 2
Yamazaki teaches wherein the medical data includes a plurality of types of medical records acquired at a plurality of points in time; and (Yamazaki para 26 teaches the database stores various kinds of information with time and date. Para 50 teaches plural points of time for chronological information. )
the processing circuit is further configured cause the display to display the psychosocial items in a mode according to the information amount. (Yamazaki para 89 teaches displaying patient information such as NT-proBNP and respiration rate)
CLAIM 3
Yamazaki teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to cause the extracted descriptions to be displayed along with time-series information. (Yamazaki para 88 teaches displaying chronological display based on patient and intervention information)
CLAIM 5
Yamazaki teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to calculate the information amount based on a similarity between the extracted descriptions. (Yamazaki para 52 teaches evaluating a degree of change comparing feature vectors)
CLAIM 6
Yamazaki teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to calculate a width of one of the a fluctuation in the psychosocial items using the result of extraction, and (Yamazaki para 52 teaches evaluating a degree of change by comparing feature vectors)
Cause one of the psychosocial item to be displayed in a mode according to the width of the fluctuation. (Yamazaki para 89 teaches display of NT-proBNP and respiration in a graph. Fig 11A-D show displays of information and change over time)
CLAIM 7
Yamazaki teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to further cause a temporal change in a parameter related to one of the psychosocial item to be displayed. (Yamazaki para 89 teaches display of NT-proBNP and respiration in a graph. Fig 11A-D show displays of information and change over time. Para 54 teaches the period of time of evaluation a degree of change may be set.)
CLAIM 8
Yamazaki teaches wherein the processing circuit is mounted on a cloud server. (Yamazaki para 33 and 41 teaches processing circuitry implementing respective functions by reading and executing programs using a server group (cloud) )
CLAIM 9
Yamazaki teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to: acquire, as the medical data, one or more pieces of medical information on a patient collected by a plurality of healthcare professionals; (Yamazaki para 35 teaches acquiring medical information. Para 27 teaches patient information including information from examinations. Para 29 teaches medical information may be recorded in a clinic, nursing home, or examination facility.)
calculate, for the pieces of the medical information acquired by an acquirer, a fluctuation value indicative of a magnitude of a variation between the pieces of the medical information of a same type; and (Yamazaki para 52 teaches a feature vector indicating medical information for a time point. Para 52 teaches evaluating a degree of change comparing feature vectors)
cause the display to display the pieces of the medical information acquired by the acquirer, for each type of the pieces of the medical information, along with information indicative of the calculated fluctuation value. (Yamazaki para 89 teaches displaying patient information such as NT-proBNP and respiration rate. Fig 11A-D show displays of information and change over time)
CLAIM 12
Yamazaki teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to: calculate a first fluctuation value indicative of a magnitude of a variation in the pieces of the medical information between the plurality of healthcare professionals who collected the pieces of the medical information; and (Yamazaki para 52 teaches evaluating a degree of change by comparing feature vectors. Para 70 teaches calculating a change amount that indicates a change of patient information between before and after the change point. Para 27 teaches patient information includes information collected from examinations such as medical image data, vital data, symptom described by patient. )
cause the medical information to be displayed along with information indicative of the first fluctuation value. (Yamazaki para 89 teaches display of NT-proBNP and respiration in a graph. Fig 11A-D show displays of information and change over time)
CLAIM 13
Yamazaki teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to: calculate, for the pieces of the medical information, a second fluctuation value indicative of a magnitude of a temporal variation in the pieces of the medical information; and (Yamazaki para 48 teaches chronological information relating to medical information of NT-proBNP and respiration rate)
cause the medical information to be displayed along with information indicative of the second fluctuation value. (Yamazaki para 48 and Fig 3 teaches display of chronological information relating to medical information )
CLAIM 14
Yamazaki teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to: calculate a third fluctuation value indicative of a magnitude of a variation in the pieces of the medical information between medical events which are related to a medical treatment of the patient and from which the pieces of the medical information were collected; and (Yamazaki para 52 teaches evaluating a degree of change by comparing feature vectors. Para 70 teaches calculating a change amount that indicates a change of patient information between before and after the change point. Para 27 teaches patient information includes information collected from examinations such as medical image data, vital data, symptom described by patient. )
cause the pieces of the medical information to be displayed along with information indicative of the third fluctuation value. (Yamazaki para 89 teaches display of NT-proBNP and respiration in a graph. Fig 11A-D show displays of information and change over time)
CLAIM 15
Yamazaki teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to determine a type of a fluctuation indicative of a variation between the pieces of the medical information from the calculated first fluctuation value, the calculated second fluctuation value, and the calculated third fluctuation value. (Yamazaki para 52 teaches evaluating a degree of change by comparing feature vectors. Para 70 teaches calculating a change amount that indicates a change of patient information between before and after the change point. Fig 11A-D show displays of change in information and change over time. )
CLAIM 19
Yamazaki teaches wherein the description is a medical record, […] or […] . (Yamazaki para 26-29 teaches medical information includes patient information and intervention information including time and date, examination information, vital data, medical image data, condition of patient. Examiner interprets additional limitations as optional due to claim language “… or …”)
CLAIM 20
A diagnosis support apparatus comprising: (Yamazaki para 30 teaches a diagnosing support apparatus comprising processing circuitry)
an acquirer configured to acquire medical data; (Yamazaki para 35 teaches acquiring medical information)
a calculator configured to calculate, based on the medical data, a feature amount in the medical data for a predetermined period; and (Yamazaki para 35 teaches calculating a change point in the medical information between before and after the change point)
a display controller configured to cause a display to display the medical data in a mode according to the feature amount (Yamazaki para 35 teaches displaying the based on change amount)
wherein the calculator is further configured to calculate a number of extracted descriptions as an information amount, (Yamazaki para 45-46 teaches an extracting function acquiring intervention information and patient information and description information for intervention and patient information )
the processing circuit is further configured to classify a respective one of psychosocial items into a plurality of levels by performing a threshold determination on a value of the information amount,
indicating a type of the respective one of the psychosocial items, […], and (Yamazaki para 53 teaches the extracting function extracts a point in time in which a degree of change is larger than a threshold. Para 55 teaches extracting smooth and momentary change points)
[…] the processing circuit is configured to display a medical record associated with a corresponding one of the psychosocial items. (Yamazaki para 89 teaches displaying patient information such as NT-proBNP and respiration rate)
Yamazaki does not teach
set a presence or an absence of a blinking of an icon indicating a type of the respective one of the psychosocial items, and a speed of the blinking, and display the icon in accordance with the setting or […], and
Newkirk does teach
set a presence or an absence of a blinking of an icon indicating a type of the respective one of the psychosocial items, and a speed of the blinking, and display the icon in accordance with the setting or […], and (Newkirk para 48 teaches icon blinking and speed indicating operation. Examiner interprets additional limitations as optional due to claim language “or … ”)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the indication as taught by Yamazaki with blinking and speed as taught by Newkirk because it would be beneficial to indicate operation as taught by Newkirk para 48.
Yamazaki in view of Newkirk does not teach
in a case of the icon being selected by a user, the processing circuit is configured to display a medical record associated with a corresponding one of the psychosocial item
Sorkey does teach
in a case of the icon being selected by a user, the processing circuit is configured to display a medical record associated with a corresponding one of the psychosocial item (Sorkey para 48 teaches a user selecting an icon to display)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the display as taught by Yamazaki with selecting an icon by the user as taught by Sorkey because it would be beneficial to reduce numerous clicks, screen touches and increase operator efficiency and reduce operator fatigue as taught by Sorkey para 3.
CLAIM 21
a data inputter including by a plurality of terminals operated by healthcare professionals and configured to receive input of a medical record; and (Yamazaki para 31 teaches an input interface. Para 65 teaches input as medical information about the patient. Para 61 teaches a user as a doctor)
a medical database configured to store the medical record input into the data inputter, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire the medical record from the medical database as the medical data. (Yamazaki para 24 teaches a database that stores medical information about the patient. Para 25 teaches electronic medical chart and the database 20 is a general management apparatus that acquires various kinds of medical information from various kinds of medical information systems, such as an electronic medical-chart system, a picture archiving and communication system (PACS), a radiation department system, and a specimen examination system, and that manages the acquired medical information as a platform. Although the database 20 is illustrated as a single unit in FIG. 1, the database 20 may be constituted of plural physically separated storage devices in a combined manner. Moreover, these plural storage devices may be installed in different facilities from each other.)
CLAIM 22
A diagnosis support system, comprising: a processing circuit configured (Yamazaki para 21 teaches a system and para 30 teaches a diagnosing support apparatus comprising processing circuitry)
to acquire medical data: (Yamazaki para 35 teaches acquiring medical information)
calculate, based on the medical data, a feature amount in the medical data for a predetermined period; and (Yamazaki para 35 teaches calculating a change point in the medical information between before and after the change point)
cause a display to display the medical data in a mode according to the calculated feature amount, (Yamazaki para 35 teaches displaying based on change amount)
wherein the processing circuit is further configured to acquire, as the medical data, medical information on a patient collected by a plurality of healthcare professionals, (Yamazaki para 31 teaches an input interface. Para 65 teaches input as medical information about the patient. Para 61 teaches a user as a doctor. para 24 teaches a database that stores medical information about the patient. Para 25 teaches electronic medical chart and the database 20 is a general management apparatus that acquires various kinds of medical information from various kinds of medical information systems, such as an electronic medical-chart system, a picture archiving and communication system (PACS), a radiation department system, and a specimen examination system, and that manages the acquired medical information as a platform)
the processing circuit is further configured to calculate, as the feature amount, a fluctuation value indicating a magnitude of fluctuation between pieces of medical information of a same type for a plurality of pieces of medical information acquired by the processing circuit, (Yamazaki para 52 teaches a feature vector indicating medical information for a time point. Para 52 teaches evaluating a degree of change comparing feature vectors)
the processing circuit is further configured to cause the display to display the medical information, for each type of the medical information, along with information indicating the fluctuation value, and (Yamazaki para 89 teaches displaying patient information such as NT-proBNP and respiration rate. Fig 11A-D show displays of information and change over time)
to cause the display to display […] indicating a type of the medical information with a display […] according to a type of a fluctuation of the fluctuation value, and (Yamazaki para 89 teaches displaying patient information such as NT-proBNP and respiration rate. Fig 11A-D show displays of information and change over time)
the […] indicates a content of a corresponding one of psychosocial items, and (Yamazaki para 89 teaches displaying patient information such as NT-proBNP and respiration rate. Fig 11A-D show displays of information and change over time)
[…] a medical record associated with the corresponding one of the psychosocial items is displayed. (Yamazaki para 89 teaches displaying patient information such as NT-proBNP and respiration rate. Fig 11A-D show displays of information and change over time)
Yamazaki does not teach
to cause the display to display an icon indicating a type of the medical information with a display pattern according to a type of a fluctuation of the fluctuation value, and
the icon indicates a content of a corresponding one of psychosocial items, and
Newkirk does teach
to cause the display to display an icon indicating a type of the medical information with a display pattern according to a type of a fluctuation of the fluctuation value, and the icon indicates a content of a corresponding one of psychosocial items, and (Newkirk para 48 teaches icon blinking and speed indicating operation)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the indication as taught by Yamazaki with icon and pattern blinking and speed as taught by Newkirk because it would be beneficial to indicate operation as taught by Newkirk para 48.
Yamazaki in view of Newkirk does not teach
in a case of the icon being selected by a user, a medical record associated with the corresponding one of the psychosocial items is displayed.
Sorkey does teach
in a case of the icon being selected by a user, the processing circuit is configured to display a medical record associated with a corresponding one of the psychosocial item (Sorkey para 48 teaches a user selecting an icon to display)
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the display as taught by Yamazaki with selecting an icon by the user as taught by Sorkey because it would be beneficial to reduce numerous clicks, screen touches and increase operator efficiency and reduce operator fatigue as taught by Sorkey para 3.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 20210104324) in view of Newkirk (US 20200268580) in view of Sorkey (Us 20120004902) in view of Tolcher (US 20140222461)
CLAIM 10
Yamazaki teaches wherein the pieces of the medical information […] (Yamazaki para 35 teaches acquiring medical information)
Yamazaki does not teach wherein the pieces of the medical information include subjective information of the patient input by the plurality of healthcare professionals.
Tolcher does teach wherein the pieces of the medical information include subjective information of the patient input by the plurality of healthcare professionals. (Tolcher para 22 teaches input provided by medical care providers including subjective data)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the noted features of Tolcher with teaching of Yamazaki since the combination of the two references is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR rational A); see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). It can be seen that each element claimed is present in either Yamazaki or Tolcher. Including subjective information input by healthcare professionals as taught by Tolcher does not change or affect the normal displaying of medical data which would be performed the same way even with the addition of including subjective information input by healthcare professionals. Since the functionalities of the elements in Yamazaki and Tolcher do not interfere with each other, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 20210104324) in view of Newkirk (US 20200268580) in view of Sorkey (Us 20120004902) in view of Tolcher (US 20140222461) in view of Lee (US 20220148728)
CLAIM 11
Yamazaki teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to calculate the fluctuation value […] (Yamazaki para 52 teaches evaluating a degree of change by comparing feature vectors)
Yamazaki does not teach wherein the processing circuit is further configured to calculate the fluctuation value […] for evaluating the subjective information, defined for each piece of the subjective information.
Tolcher does teach wherein the processing circuit is further configured to calculate the fluctuation value […] for evaluating the subjective information, defined for each piece of the subjective information.. (Tolcher para 22 teaches input provided by medical care providers including subjective data)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the noted features of Tolcher with teaching of Yamazaki since the combination of the two references is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR rational A); see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). It can be seen that each element claimed is present in either Yamazaki or Tolcher. Including subjective information input by healthcare professionals as taught by Tolcher does not change or affect the normal displaying of medical data which would be performed the same way even with the addition of including subjective information input by healthcare professionals. Since the functionalities of the elements in Yamazaki and Tolcher do not interfere with each other, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Yamazaki does not teach wherein the processing circuit is configured to calculate the fluctuation value based on an evaluation index for evaluating the subjective information, defined for each piece of the subjective information.
Lee does teach wherein the processing circuit is configured to calculate the fluctuation value based on an evaluation index for evaluating the subjective information, defined for each piece of the subjective information. (Lee para 72 teaches evaluating a user’s stress or emotion based on reference value for a specific emotion in a resting state. )
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the fluctuation value as taught by Yamazaki in view of Tolcher with the evaluation index as taught by Lee. It would be beneficial for accurately assess stress as taught by Lee para 6.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 20210104324) in view of Newkirk (US 20200268580) in view of Sorkey (Us 20120004902) in view of Yonezawa (US 20110022553)
CLAIM 16
Yamazaki teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to […] a piece of the medical information belongs, based on correspondence information associating the piece of the medical information […] cause the piece of the medical information to be displayed […] (Yamazaki para 24 teaches medical information about a patient. Para 25 teaches medical information such an medical-chart system, archiving and picture, radiation department. Para 102 teaches displaying of medical information)
Yamazaki does not teach wherein the processing circuit is further configured to determine, from categories, a category to which a piece of the medical information belongs, based on correspondence information associating the piece of the medical information with categories of the pieces of the medial information, and cause the piece of the medical information to be displayed along with information indicative of the category to which the piece of the medical information belongs.
Yonezawa does teach wherein the processing circuit is further configured to determine, from categories, a category to which a piece of the medical information belongs, based on correspondence information associating the piece of the medical information with categories of the pieces of the medial information, and cause the piece of the medical information to be displayed along with information indicative of the category to which the piece of the medical information belongs. (Yonezawa claim 3 teaches classifying clinical data into a category. Para 129 teaches displaying information corresponding to category. )
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the noted features of Yonezawa with teaching of Yamazaki since the combination of the two references is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR rational A); see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). It can be seen that each element claimed is present in either Yamazaki in view of Tolcher or Yonezawa. Specifying category and display of information indicative of category as taught by Yonezawa does not change or affect the normal displaying of medical information which would be performed the same way even with the addition of specifying category and display of information indicative of category. Since the functionalities of the elements in Yamazaki and Yonezawa do not interfere with each other, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 20210104324) in view of Newkirk (US 20200268580) in view of Sorkey (Us 20120004902) in view of Yonezawa (US 20110022553) in view of Nenoki (US 20200279652)
CLAIM 17
Yamazaki in view of Yonezawa teach The diagnosis support system according to claim 16, (See claim 16)
Yamazaki in view of Tolcher in view of Yonezawa do not teach
wherein the categories include a medical indication, a patient’s intention, a QOL, and a contextual feature; and the processing circuit is further configured to divide a display area for the medical information into four areas, an area for displaying the medical indication, an area for displaying the patient’s intention, an area for displaying the QOL, and an area for displaying the contextual feature, and cause the pieces of the medical information to be displayed in the areas corresponding to the categories of the pieces of the medical information, respectively.
Nenoki does teach
wherein the categories include a medical indication, a patient’s intention, a QOL, and a contextual feature; and the processing circuit is further configured to divide a display area for the medical information into four areas, an area for displaying the medical indication, an area for displaying the patient’s intention, an area for displaying the QOL, and an area for displaying the contextual feature, and cause the pieces of the medical information to be displayed in the areas corresponding to the categories of the pieces of the medical information, respectively. (Nenoki para 86 teaches a display screen divided into four sections including a graph indicating a time-series change of a measurement value of each measurement item such as the body temperature, pulse, and blood pressure (high and low) of vital signs, a bar indicating a dosage and an administration period of the medicine. Para 87 further teaches display of patient information)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the noted features of Nenoki with teaching of Yamazaki in view of Yonezawa since the combination of the two references is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR rational A); see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). It can be seen that each element claimed is present in either Nenoki or Yamazaki in view of Yonezawa. Categories including medical indication, a QOL, and a contextual feature and dividing the display area into four areas with an area for each category as taught by Nenoki does not change or affect the normal displaying of medical information which would be performed the same way even with the addition of categories including medical indication, a QOL, and a contextual feature and dividing the display area into four areas with an area for each category. Since the functionalities of the elements in Nenoki and Yamazaki in view of Yonezawa do not interfere with each other, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamazaki (US 20210104324) in view of Newkirk (US 20200268580) in view of Sorkey (Us 20120004902) in view of Atsumori (US 20150297126)
CLAIM 18
Yamazaki teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to […] the pieces of the medical information by […] the pieces of the medical information for each pair of the pieces of the medical information, and cause information […] the pieces of the medical information to be displayed. (Yamazaki para 24 teaches medical information about a patient. Para 25 teaches medical information such an medical-chart system, archiving and picture, radiation department. Para 102 teaches displaying of medical information)
Yamazaki does not teach wherein the processing circuit is further configured to analyze a correlation between the pieces of the medical information by calculating a correlation coefficient of indexes related to the pieces of the medical information for each pair of the pieces of the medical information, and cause information indicative of the correlation between the pieces of the medical information to be displayed.
Atsumori does not teach wherein the processing circuit is configured to analyze a correlation between the pieces of the medical information by calculating a correlation coefficient of indexes related to the pieces of the medical information for each pair of the pieces of the medical information, and cause information indicative of the correlation between the pieces of the medical information to be displayed. (Atsumori para 76 teaches calculating of correlation coefficient related to medical information and display of correlation coefficient )
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the noted features of Yamazaki with teaching of Atsumori since the combination of the two references is merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR rational A); see MPEP 2143(I)(A)). It can be seen that each element claimed is present in either Yamazaki or Atsumori. Analyzing a correlation by calculating a correlation coefficient indicative correlation as taught by Atsumori does not change or affect the normal displaying of medical information which would be performed the same way even with the analyzing a correlation by calculating a correlation coefficient indicative correlation. Since the functionalities of the elements in Yamazaki or Atsumori do not interfere with each other, the results of the combination would be predictable.
Prior Art Made of Record and Not Relied Upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210366593 TAKENOUCHI
[0002] The present invention relates to a medical image processing apparatus and a medical image processing method, and particularly to a technique of notifying a physician and a patient of a classification result of automatically classifying a lesion or the like on the basis of a medical image.
Response to Arguments Regarding U.S.C. 102 Rejection
Applicant argues pg. 11:
Rather, as a feature amount, the '324 application appears to disclose a value of a feature amount, such as a dosage or a respiratory rate, and not the information amount as recited in Claim 1. Moreover, the '324 application fails to disclose a number of extracted descriptions as the information amount, but appears to use a change in feature amount for each period, as noted above with respect to paragraphs 51 and 52. Further, Applicant notes that the '324 application is silent regarding the "icon" features added to Claim l by the present amendment. For the reasons stated above, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection of Claim 1 is rendered moot by the present amendment to that claim.
Examiner responds:
Examiner uses the broadest reasonable interpretation of “information amount” to include the extraction of the information. Examiner agrees icon features are not present and has applied new art in light of amendment. See Claim 1 rejection above.
Response to Arguments Regarding U.S.C. 101 Rejection
Applicant argues pg. 13:
Moreover, nowhere does the Office appear to consider the entirety of Claim l as a whole. However, the Revised Guidance states that 'lilt is critical that Examiners consider the claim as a whole when evaluating whether the judicial exception is meaningfully limited bv integration into a practical application of the exception .... [w]hen evaluating whether an element (or combination of elements) integrates an exception into a practical application, Examiners should give careful consideration to both the element and how it is used or arranged in the claim as a whole." Emphasis added. However, Applicant notes that the Office Action does not appear to perform such analysis.
Examiner responds:
Examiner considers the entirety of claim 1 as a whole and does not consider the judicial exception as integration into a practical application of the exception. See 101 rejection above. Examiner notes “in combination” refers to evaluation of the whole claim wherein additional elements are in combination with abstract elements and the combination is found insufficient.
Applicant argues pg. 13
Further, Applicant respectfully submits that the features added to Claim 1 are additional features that integrate any purported abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites setting a presence or an absence of a blinking of an icon indicating a type of the respective one of the sychosocial items, and a speed of the blinking, and displaying the icon in accordance with the setting and that in case of the icon being selected bv a user, the processing circuitry is configured to display a medical record associated with a corresponding one of the psychosocial items.
Examiner responds:
Blinking an icon and speed of blinking and displaying a medical record in response to user selection was not found to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2A2: The claim further recites the additional element of a displayer and display controller. The displayer and display controller merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Utilization of the interactive user equates to saying “apply it.” MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Step 2B: Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a set a presence or an absence of a blinking of an icon and a speed of the blinking was determined to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and has also been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide significantly more. Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Applicant argues pg. 14
In this regard, Applicant notes that the cited '324 patent itself, which is commonly assigned, wa5 initially rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 during prosecution, but was later allowed as U.S. Patent No. 11,923,098. In particular, Claim 1 in the '324 application was amended to recite '\vherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display an icon presenting: the extracted change point, and displav one of the first change amount, the second change amount, the patient information, and the intervention information adjacent to the icon. in response to selection of the icon by a user."
Based on that amendment, the Examiner withdrew the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and noted in the reasons for allowance that "[t]he invention recites substantially more than the abstract idea because it provides a technical solution for displaving extracted change point and display infonnation on the screen as a summary window. The application provides a practical application as disclosed in the specification ... for example, display an icon representing the extracted change point and display information on the screen as a summary for each change point when selected w-hich integrates the claim into a practical
application. "'
Examiner responds:
Applicant has not identified a technical problem nor a technical solution. Further, Applicant has not identified a technical solution for displaying extracted change point and display intonation on the screen as a summary window and so the Applicant’s claims are unlike the identified claims in the cited application wherein the Examiner found the claim to overcome the 101 rejection.
Applicant argues pg. 14:
Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 1 similarly displays an icon and displays a medical record associated with one of the psychosocial items in response to selection of the icon. Similarly, Claim l integrates any purported abstract idea into a practical application by providing a technical solution for the display of the medical record.
Examiner responds:
Applicant has not identified a technical problem. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Here, Applicant identified, any technological problem that was caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW KYLE TAPIA whose telephone number is (703)756-1662. The examiner can normally be reached 830 - 530.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/A.K.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights