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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 10 October 2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim ends with a semi-colon, but should end with a period. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim ends with a semi-colon, but should end with a period. This appears to be a typographical error. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitations are: “the authentication component,” “the one or more indexing components,” “a display module,” “a selection module,” “a data management module,” “a social features module,” “a messaging module,” “application modules,” and “a database update module” in claim 1; “a file upload module” in claim 3, “the file upload module” in claim 4; “the database update module” in claim 6; “the data management module” and “the search engine” in claim 8; “the database update module” in claim 9; “the messaging module” claim 10; and the similar recitations in claims 12 and 14-19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the application” in line 30 of page 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim 1 will instead be considered to recite “the application capable device.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 2-11 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the application” in line 6 of page 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, claim 12 will instead be considered to recite “the application capable device.” Appropriate correction is required. Claims 13-18 inherit this deficiency.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “unique identifying information” in line 30 of page 3. It is unclear whether this is the same “unique identifying information” recited earlier in the claim, or if it is different. For the purposes of examination, claim 12 will instead be considered to recite “the unique identifying information” in line 30 of page 3. 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Claims 1-20 fall within one or more statutory categories. Claims 1-11 and 19-20 fall within the category of a machine. Claims 12-18 fall within the category of a process.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites:
… receive at least one search condition comprising of at least one attribute or keyword and retrieve database entries according to the received search conditions;
… receive identifying information from the application capable device, identify a user according to identifying information received, and provide permission for access to the features enabled by their type of user account;
… receive input for selecting a database entry from among the displayed search results;
… receive input for selecting accessible features provided by modules that are displayed within the interface;
… export or print information from a selected database entry;
… display and enable interaction with social features linked to a selected database entry;
… facilitate communication with the users associated with a selected database entry and manage received messages;
… receive database entry information and attributes from the user to create or update a database entry.
Therefore, the claim as a whole is directed to “managing clinical trial records,” which is an abstract idea because it is a method of organizing human activity. “Managing clinical trial records” is considered to be a method of organizing human activity because it is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims includes the managing of information related to the relationships and interactions of multiple patients and healthcare providers.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the following additional element(s):
a server coupled to one or more components containing one or more databases, one or more search engine components, one or more indexing components, and an authentication component;
an application capable device coupled to the server via a network and having a microprocessor component, a storage device, a display device for presenting a graphical user interface, and one or more input components which allow a user to create or interact with knowledge-base information, and the authentication component on the server and one or more application modules;
wherein the knowledge-base information comprises of one or more database entries to be searched and indexed, one or more attributes for each database entry, one or more user accounts, and a search engine;
the search engine delivered as a software service over the network, generated according to search conditions received from the application capable device and configured to search the one or more database entries according to the received search conditions;
the search engine is configured as a module of the search engine component on the server;
the one or more databases configured to store the one or more database entries, one or more attributes for each database entry, and one or more user accounts;
the one or more indexing components configured to store the database entries retrieved by the search engine and index the entries into a format viewable by the application capable device;
a display module configured to display search results, selected database entries, and selectable features on the display device;
a selection module;
a data management module;
a social features module;
a messaging module;
wherein the selection module, data management module, social features module, and messaging module are application modules configured to be processed through the microprocessor;
a database update module;
wherein the database update module is an application module configured to be processed through the microprocessor and transmit the information to the one or more databases; and
the one or more databases configured to receive database entry information from the database update module over the network.
The additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the exception into a practical application. The various devices, servers, components and modules merely amount to reciting the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional elements of communicating between the devices over a networks is considered to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 1 does not include additional elements, considered individually or in combination, 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 various devices, servers, components and modules merely amount to reciting the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements of communicating between the devices over a networks is considered to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Finally, receiving and transmitting data over a network is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 2 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the application capable device is a phone or tablet device.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 2 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
a file upload module is configured to accept files as user input;
the file upload module is an application module configured to be processed through the microprocessor and store uploaded files on the storage device.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 3 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 4 recites the method of claim 3, wherein:
the file upload module is further configured to process images input as search conditions, derive attributes from the processed image, and provide the derived attributes to the search engine in place of the image as the user’s search conditions.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 4 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 5 recites the method of claim 4, wherein:
the image file is a Clinical Pathway Flowchart.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 4 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 5 is considered to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites the method of claim 3, wherein:
the database update module is configured to import a file uploaded through the file upload module as information for creating or updating database entries.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 6 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 7 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the selection module is further configured to automatically select a retrieved database entry when the search engine only retrieves a single entry.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 7 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 8 recites the method of claim 7, wherein:
the data management module is further configured to provide a user with the option to select one or more database entries as favorites and store unique identifying information of the selected one or more database entries in the storage device;
the search engine is further configured to directly retrieve a database entry when a user provides the unique identifying information as a search condition.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 8 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 9 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the database update module is configured to receive API data through the network as information for creating or updating database entries.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements of communicating between the devices over a networks is considered to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Finally, receiving and transmitting data over a network is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 9 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 10 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the messaging module is configured to send messages externally over the network.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the additional elements of communicating between the devices over a networks is considered to add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). Finally, receiving and transmitting data over a network is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 10 is ineligible.
Dependent claim 11 recites the method of claim 1, wherein:
the database entries are stored clinical trial information.
This merely further limits the abstract idea of claim 1 discussed above and does not provide further additional elements. Therefore, claim 11 is considered to be ineligible.
Claims 12-18 are parallel in nature to claims 1-4, 6, and 9-10. Accordingly, claims 12-18 are rejected as being directed towards ineligible subject matter based upon the same analysis above.
Dependent claim 19 recites a method that is substantially similar to the method of claim 1. Claim 19 further recites the following additional element:
wherein the graphical user interface is a remote application configured to accept input from a user through the input components, display output of the system on the display device, processing the one or more application modules through the microprocessor component, and communicating with the server over the network.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 19 is ineligible based this and the same analysis of claim 1.
Dependent claim 20 recites the method of claim 19, wherein:
the remote application is a web application accessed and controlled through an internet browser interface.
The additional elements present in this claim merely recite the words ‘‘apply it’’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). These types of additional elements are not enough to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 20 is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toto (U.S. 2004/0078216), hereinafter “Toto,” in view of Pruit et al. (U.S. 2014/0316793), hereinafter “Pruit.”
Regarding Claim 1, Toto discloses a :
a server coupled to one or more components containing one or more databases, one or more search engine components, one or more indexing components, and an authentication component (See Toto Fig.3 and [0173] the system can include the use of a server with a database and document repository, web features, and application features. [0196] the system includes the use of support servers to facilitate access or sharing of information.);
an application capable device coupled to the server via a network and having a microprocessor component, a storage device, a display device for presenting a graphical user interface, and one or more input components which allow a user to create or interact with knowledge-base information, and the authentication component on the server and one or more application modules (See Toto Fig. 1 and [0170] A display and input device is operable by a user. Suitable display and input devices include but are not limited to a personal computer, portable computer, internet-enabled device, information appliance, kiosk, communication device, personal-digital assistant, and other network enabled devices. The system is coupled to display and input devices by a network. Suitable networks include but are not limited to internet, local area network, wide area network, broadband network, and wireless network.);
wherein the knowledge-base information comprises of one or more database entries to be searched and indexed, one or more attributes for each database entry, one or more user accounts, and a search engine (See Toto Figs. 6-25 and [0187] provide an example of database tables, indexed with corresponding attributes. [0246] the system includes a patron module for searching clinical trials and creating and managing accounts. See Figs. 63-64 for examples of a search UI and engine.);
the search engine delivered as a software service over the network, generated according to search conditions received from the application capable device and configured to search the one or more database entries according to the received search conditions (See Toto [0246] the system includes a patron module for searching clinical trials and creating and managing accounts. See Figs. 63-64 for examples of a search UI and engine. See also [0305].);
the search engine is configured to receive at least one search condition comprising of at least one attribute or keyword and retrieve database entries according to the received search conditions (See Toto Fig. 61 and [0304] when a patron enters keywords in the search field and clicks the go button, the module performs a search of the trial database and returns a list of trials on the search result page that contain the keywords in their records.);
the search engine is configured as a module of the search engine component on the server (See Toto Fig. 41 and [0246] the patron module is used to perform the search, and is connected directly to the database and trial repository. Fig. 3 and [0173] describes the system as being provided by a server setup.);
the one or more databases configured to store the one or more database entries, one or more attributes for each database entry, and one or more user accounts (See Toto [0304] the search is performed on the trial database that stores the clinical trial information. See also Figs. 6-25 and [0187] provide an example of database tables, indexed with corresponding attributes.);
the authentication component configured to receive identifying information from the application capable device, identify a user according to identifying information received, and provide permission for access to the features enabled by their type of user account (See Toto [0179] authentication of user and access based on user role determined by the user provided identifying information. [0189] system can include software and hardware that stores, verifies, and communicates user privileges and permissions to share and access information. See also [0202].);
the one or more indexing components configured to store the database entries retrieved by the search engine and index the entries into a format viewable by the application capable device (See Toto [0246] the system includes a patron module for searching clinical trials and displaying the results. See Figs. 63-64 for examples of a search UI and engine. [0303] a patron finds clinical trials of interest by searching or browsing the trial repository via the patron module.);
a display module configured to display search results, selected database entries, and selectable features on the display device (See Toto Fig. 63 and [0309] the search result pages includes selectable database result entries. Next to each listing in this embodiment is a view button, which when clicked, will take the patron to the trial locations page.);
a selection module configured to receive input for selecting a database entry from among the displayed search results (See Toto Fig. 63 and [0309] the search result pages includes selectable database result entries. Next to each listing in this embodiment is a view button, which when clicked, will take the patron to the trial locations page. Therefore, the user is able to make selections.);
the selection module configured to receive input for selecting accessible features provided by modules that are displayed within the interface (See Toto Fig. 63 and [0309] the search result pages includes selectable database result entries. Next to each listing in this embodiment is a view button, which when clicked, will take the patron to the trial locations page. Therefore, the user is able to make selections.);
a data management module configured to give the user options to export or print information from a selected database entry (See Toto Fig. 66 and [0326] the system includes the ability to select a database entry and print the results.);
a messaging module configured to facilitate communication with the users associated with a selected database entry and manage received messages (See Toto [0189] the system may also include software and hardware that provides anonymous message routing between users. [0302] the system can facilitate messages between users.);
wherein the selection module, data management module, social features module, and messaging module are application modules configured to be processed through the microprocessor (See Toto Fig.3 and [0173] the system can include the use of a server with a database and document repository, web features, and application features. Servers are understood to include the use of microprocessors.);
a database update module configured to receive database entry information and attributes from the user to create or update a database entry (See Toto [0360]-[0361] the system allows for a user to update information about the clinical trial that is stored in the system. See Figs. 86-91.);
wherein the database update module is an application module configured to be processed through the microprocessor and transmit the information to the one or more databases (See Toto Fig.3 and [0173] the system can include the use of a server with a database and document repository, web features, and application features. Servers are understood to include the use of microprocessors.); and
the one or more databases configured to receive database entry information from the database update module over the network (See Toto Fig. 1 and [0170] the system is coupled to display and input devices by a network. Suitable networks include but are not limited to internet, local area network, wide area network, broadband network, and wireless network.).
Toto does not disclose:
a social features module configured to display and enable interaction with social features linked to a selected database entry.
Dimitrova teaches:
a social features module configured to display and enable interaction with social features linked to a selected database entry (See Pruit [0060] the website may be configured as a social media tool where users and visitors can share information with each other on clinical trials. FIG. 10 illustrates one embodiment where a message can be created by one patient and sent to another patient suggesting that a particular clinical trial may be beneficial to the receiving patient. See also [0044].).
The system of Dimitrova is applicable to the disclosure of Toto as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to systems that allow for searching available clinical trials (see at least Pruit [0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toto to include social media features as taught by Dimitrova. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Toto in order to take advantage of the limitless potential of social media for use in recruiting patients for clinical trials (see Pruit [0040]).
Regarding claim 2, Toto in view of Pruit discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Toto further discloses a system, wherein:
the application capable device is a phone or tablet device (See Toto Fig. 1 and [0170] A display and input device is operable by a user. Suitable display and input devices include but are not limited to a personal computer, portable computer, internet-enabled device, information appliance, kiosk, communication device, personal-digital assistant, and other network enabled devices. See also [0192].).
Regarding claim 3, Toto in view of Pruit discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Toto further discloses a system, wherein:
a file upload module is configured to accept files as user input (See Toto Fig. 87 and [0361] trial protocol files can be prepared for upload by entering their file paths in their respective file textboxes.);
the file upload module is an application module configured to be processed through the microprocessor and store uploaded files on the storage device (See Toto Fig. 1 and [0170] A display and input device is operable by a user. Suitable display and input devices include but are not limited to a personal computer, portable computer, internet-enabled device, information appliance, kiosk, communication device, personal-digital assistant, and other network enabled devices. The system is coupled to display and input devices by a network. Suitable networks include but are not limited to internet, local area network, wide area network, broadband network, and wireless network.).
Regarding claim 6, Toto in view of Pruit discloses the system of claim 3 as discussed above. Toto further discloses a system, wherein:
the database update module is configured to import a file uploaded through the file upload module as information for creating or updating database entries (See Toto Fig. 87 and [0361] trial protocol files can be prepared for upload by entering their file paths in their respective file textboxes.).
Regarding claim 9, Toto in view of Pruit discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Toto further discloses a system, wherein:
the database update module is configured to receive API data through the network as information for creating or updating database entries (See Toto [0182] clinical trial information is collected from periodic database imports from public and private databases, periodic incremental database imports, HTML, XHTML, XML, SGML, WAP, i-Mode, BREW, and plain text encoded sources, and remote databases. [0184] the system allows communication over the network with various repositories of information. [0181] the documents gathered are aggregated into a document repository 46 with a unified data structure and format.).
Regarding claim 10, Toto in view of Pruit discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Toto further discloses a system, wherein:
the messaging module is configured to send messages externally over the network (See Toto [0189] the system may also include software and hardware that provides anonymous message routing between users. [0302] the system can facilitate messages between users.).
Regarding claim 11, Toto in view of Pruit discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Toto further discloses a system, wherein:
the database entries are stored clinical trial information (See Toto [0185] clinical trial documents collected, ranked, stored, and searched for can include, but are not limited to, protocol title, rationale, eligibility criteria, treatment, protocol type, trial status, objectives, protocol entry criteria, protocol outline, special study parameters, end points, project accrual, dosage schedule, content provider, trial identification code, investigative site, and investigator name/contact information, disease condition, location of clinical trial, document lay or medical target audience, hospital affiliation of investigative site, available of pre-screen questionnaire, clinical trial contact method, availability of clinical trial help, therapeutic drug, International Classification of Disease Number, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders classification, histopathological disease classification, gene expression, investigator specialty, document source, or insurance company covering trial treatment. See also Fig. 5 and [0181].).
Regarding claims 12-14 and 16-18, Toto in view of Pruit discloses the system of claims 1-3, 6, and 9-10. Claims 12-14 and 16-18 recite a method that is substantially similar to the method performed by the system of claims 1-3, 6, and 9-10. Accordingly, claims 12-14 and 16-18 are rejected based on the same analysis.
Regarding claim 19, Toto in view of Pruit discloses the system of claim 1. Claim 19 recites a system that is substantially similar to the system of claim 1, with the addition of the following element:
wherein the graphical user interface is a remote application configured to accept input from a user through the input components, display output of the system on the display device, processing the one or more application modules through the microprocessor component, and communicating with the server over the network.
In addition to the analysis of claim 1, Toto further discloses:
wherein the graphical user interface is a remote application configured to accept input from a user through the input components, display output of the system on the display device, processing the one or more application modules through the microprocessor component, and communicating with the server over the network (See Toto [0172]-[0174] the system can be implemented using a website and application server.).
Accordingly, claim 19 is rejected based on the same analysis of claim 1 and the above.
Regarding claim 20, Toto in view of Pruit discloses the system of claim 19 as discussed above. Toto further discloses a system, wherein:
the remote application is a web application accessed and controlled through an internet browser interface (See Toto [0172]-[0174] the system can be implemented using a website and application server.).
Claims 4-5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toto (U.S. 2004/0078216), hereinafter “Toto,” in view of Pruit et al. (U.S. 2014/0316793), hereinafter “Pruit,” and further in view of Dimitrova et al. (U.S. 2023/0274809), hereinafter “Dimitrova.”
Regarding Claim 4, Toto in view of Pruit discloses the system of claim 3 as discussed above. Toto does not further disclose a system, wherein:
the file upload module is further configured to process images input as search conditions, derive attributes from the processed image, and provide the derived attributes to the search engine in place of the image as the user’s search conditions.
Dimitrova teaches:
the file upload module is further configured to process images input as search conditions, derive attributes from the processed image, and provide the derived attributes to the search engine in place of the image as the user’s search conditions (See Dimitrova [0060] the system allows for the creation of pathway decision trees. [0103] the clinical pathways can be used to automatically match users to treatment options or clinical trials. This is understood to include the use of images (the created pathways) as search criteria for the system. See also [0056].).
The system of Dimitrova is applicable to the disclosure of Toto in view of Pruit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to searching for clinical trial information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toto in view of Pruit to include clinical pathway searching as taught by Dimitrova. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Toto in view of Pruit in order to support therapy matching and dynamic clinical trial matching (see Dimitrova [0057]).
Regarding claim 5, Toto in view of Pruit discloses the system of claim 3 as discussed above. Toto does not further disclose a system, wherein:
the image file is a Clinical Pathway Flowchart.
Dimitrova teaches:
the image file is a Clinical Pathway Flowchart (See Dimitrova [0060] the system allows for the creation of pathway decision trees. [0103] the clinical pathways can be used to automatically match users to treatment options or clinical trials. Clinical pathways and clinical pathway decision trees meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “Clinical Pathway Flowchart.”).
The system of Dimitrova is applicable to the disclosure of Toto in view of Pruit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to searching for clinical trial information. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toto in view of Pruit to include clinical pathway searching as taught by Dimitrova. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Toto in view of Pruit in order to support therapy matching and dynamic clinical trial matching (see Dimitrova [0057]).
Regarding claim 15, Toto in view of Pruit and Dimitrova disclose the system of claim 4 as discussed above. Claim 15 recites a method that is substantially similar to the method performed by the system of claim 4. Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected based on the same analysis.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toto (U.S. 2004/0078216), hereinafter “Toto,” in view of Pruit et al. (U.S. 2014/0316793), hereinafter “Pruit,” and further in view of Bucur et al. (U.S. 2013/0185099), hereinafter “Bucur.”
Regarding Claim 7, Toto in view of Pruit discloses the system of claim 1 as discussed above. Toto does not further disclose a system, wherein:
the selection module is further configured to automatically select a retrieved database entry when the search engine only retrieves a single entry.
Bucur teaches:
the selection module is further configured to automatically select a retrieved database entry when the search engine only retrieves a single entry (See Bucur [0078] the system selects a single search result for the user based on ranking criteria. Therefore the system is selecting of a single result and that result is automatically selected by the system.).
The system of Bucur is applicable to the disclosure of Toto in view of Pruit as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to searching medical information databases. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toto in view of Pruit to include the automatic selection of single entries as taught by Bucur. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Toto in view of Pruit in order to rank search results according to domain specific knowledge (see Bucur [0004]).
Regarding claim 8, Toto in view of Pruit and Bucur discloses the system of claim 7 as discussed above. Toto further discloses a system, wherein:
the data management module is further configured to provide a user with the option to select one or more database entries as favorites and store unique identifying information of the selected one or more database entries in the storage device (See Toto [0246] patron can save trial information for future. [0260] patron can save specific trial information if they have an account. Fig. 56 and [0292] Patron can review a list of saves trials. These saved trials meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of a favorite. See also [0295] may allow a patron to save a search, so that they can return to the results in the future.);
the search engine is further configured to directly retrieve a database entry when a user provides the unique identifying information as a search condition (See Toto Fig. 56 and [0292] user can review a list of saved trials.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mao et al. (U.S. 2018/0301205) teaches a system and method for efficient clinical trial matching using clinical pathways.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN L HANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shahid Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/B.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/Shahid Merchant/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3684