DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the amendment submitted October 22, 2025. This application claims the benefit of priority from Japanese Patent Application No. 2022-177033, filed on October 28, 2022. Claims 1 and 3 – 12 are amended. Claim 2 is cancelled. Claim 13 is new. Claims 1 and 3 – 13 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 and 3 – 13 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.
Step One
Claims 1 and 3 – 13 are drawn to an apparatus and system, which is/are statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One
Independent claims 1 and 12 recite assigning a label representing an attribute to each of the folders, storing medical files, pertaining to medical information the users intend to use, and set a condition pertaining to presentation of the file.
The recited limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover certain methods of organizing human activity, as reflected in the specification, which states that present invention relates to “A medical information processing apparatus according to an embodiment includes a processing circuitry. Based on files pertaining to medical information that users intend to browse or operate and folders that store the files therein, which are managed by each user, the processing circuitry assigns a label representing an attribute to each of the folders. Based on the files stored in the folders with the same or similar label, the processing circuitry sets a condition pertaining to presentation of the file” (Abstract of the published specification). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The present claims cover certain methods of organizing human activity because “… the user will browse various files (hereinafter, files are also referred to as data) for diagnostic and research purposes. In addition, the same data may be browsed many times, and it is very time-consuming to retrieve the data each time. In view of this, the user may use a bookmark function. The bookmark function is a managing function to enable the user who wants to browse the medical information that the user browsed before, to easily access that medical information.” (paragraph 29 of the published specification). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea(s) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).”
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are abstract but for the inclusion of the additional elements including:
Claim 1: “a medical information processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry”
Claims 3 – 4, 6 – 11, 13: “medical information processing apparatus”, “processing circuitry”
Claim 5: “medical information processing apparatus”, “processing circuitry”, “folder that stores a link capable of accessing the file”
Claim 12: “a medical information processing system comprising a memory apparatus configured to store medical information therein, one or a plurality of terminal apparatuses configured to, by using a folder created for each user and being capable of storing the medical information or a link to the medical information as a file, receive a file operation of the user for the file, and a medical information processing apparatus, wherein the medical information processing apparatus includes processing circuitry”
These features are additional elements that are recited at a high level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. See: MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, even in combination, 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.
Hence, the 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. Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B
The claims do 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, using the additional elements to perform the abstract idea amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are not integrated into the claim because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claim that do not alter or affect how the process steps or functions in the abstract idea are performed. Therefore, the claimed additional elements do not add meaningful limitations to the indicated claims beyond a general linking to a technological environment. See: MPEP 2106.05(h).
Further, the claimed additional elements, identified above, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are generic components that are configured to perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry. See: MPEP 2106.05(d). Said additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and provide conventional functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. The published specification supports this conclusion as follows:
[0027] The terminal apparatus 300 is an information processing apparatus to be used by the user. Here, the user may be a physician or a co-medical staff member such as a nurse, a pharmacist, a clinical laboratory technician, a radiology technician, a physical therapist, a speech therapist, or a dental hygienist. The terminal apparatus 300 is realized by a computer appliance such as a desktop personal computer (PC), a laptop PC, or a tablet PC. Information such as a user ID identifying the user and a terminal ID identifying the terminal apparatus 300 is stored in the memory apparatus of the terminal apparatus 300.
[0079] The term "processor" used in the above description means, for example, a central processing unit (CPU), a graphics processing unit (GPU), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a programmable logic device (for example, simple programmable logic device (SPLD)), a complex programmable logic device (CPLD), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), and other circuitry. The processor reads out and executes a computer program saved in the memory 130 to realize the function.
Viewing the limitations as an ordered combination, the claims simply instruct the additional elements to implement the concept described above in the identification of abstract idea with routine, conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment.
Hence, the claims as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claim(s) 3 – 11 and 13 when analyzed as a whole, considering the additional elements individually and/or as an ordered combination, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claim(s) 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by Straube et al., herein after Straube (U.S. Publication Number 2002/0007287 A1) is withdrawn based upon the amendment submitted October 22, 2025.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 – 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straube et al., herein after Straube (U.S. Publication Number 2002/0007287 A1) in view of Jacobson (WO 02/06990 A1).
Claim 1 (Currently Amended). Straube teaches a medical information processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry (Figure 1; paragraph 25 discloses an electronic archiving and retrieval of medical documents system which allows users to store, organize, locate, and retrieve files) configured to:
based on files pertaining to medical information that respective users intend to browse or operate, and based on folders that store the files therein, the files and the folders being managed by the respective users, assign a label representing an attribute to each of the folders (paragraph 44 discloses a bookmarks window which enables a user to access various medical information and files stored within the system, and includes a file menu, data menu, docUguides menu, and more, and allows users to quickly access files stored; paragraph 45 discloses a tree view navigation to organize and display documents, where the tree view can allow a user to combine multiple document types (e.g. images and text files) into a folder for organizational purposes).
Straube fails to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Jacobson as cited:
based on a total number of users among the users who manage a folder of the folders assigned with a label representing the same attribute, set a first condition or a second condition (page 8, lines 18 – 26 discloses an online registration service to register members to use the file system; page 12, lines 17 – 29 discloses a hierarchical folder structure that can be included in each of the member research spaces where the folders can be used to store information from the link database, such as the addresses of networked resources containing relevant medical information and brief descriptions or titles corresponding to the medical information; page 13, lines 28 – 31 discloses a groups link that presents a page that allows the user to create new groups and edit existing groups where the new group function can present a page allowing the users to selectively add other members to the group; page 16, lines 2 – 7 discloses a window displaying a member interface to the sharing functionality, which includes a group and folder sharing interface), wherein
the first condition is for recommending, for a second user other than first users among the users who manage a first file in the folder assigned with the label representing the same attribute, a first action of adding the first file to the folder assigned with the label representing the same attribute, and (page 17, lines 13 – 32 discloses permitting members to share information with other members where the member request (to share information) includes the identification of the intended recipient and the information to be received, where if the transfer of information is authorized, the information link is transferred into a folder included in the recipients research space), the second condition is for recommending for the second user a second action of deleting a second file managed by the second user from the folder assigned with the label representing the same attribute (page 12, lines 6 – 16 discloses an interface is provided by the application server that permits the physician to add or delete links from the database; page 13, lines 18 – 27 discloses the edit/delete link permits the user to edit or delete existing links and folders in the folder space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand the method of Straube to further include providing a computer system that distributes reliable medical information to users by way of a communication network by providing a user-accessible database identifying networked data resources having trustworthy medical content as disclosed by Jacobson.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to expand the method of Straube in this way to have a system that would classify medical information in a manner that would allow convenient access to individuals (Jacobson: page 2, lines 26 – 30).
Claim 12 (Currently Amended). Straube teaches a medical information processing system comprising a memory apparatus configured to store medical information therein, one or a plurality of terminal apparatuses (paragraph 37 discloses the client may store a copy of the information) configured to, by using a folder created for each user and being capable of storing the medical information or a link to the medical information as a file, receive a file operation of the user for the file, and a medical information processing apparatus (Figure 1; paragraph 25 discloses an electronic archiving and retrieval of medical documents system which allows users to store, organize, locate, and retrieve files), wherein the medical information processing apparatus includes processing circuitry configured to:
based on files pertaining to medical information that respective users intend to browse or operate, and based on folders that store the files therein, the files and the folders being managed by the respective users, assign a label representing an attribute to each of the folders (paragraph 44 discloses a bookmarks window which enables a user to access various medical information and files stored within the system, and includes a file menu, data menu, docUguides menu, and more; and allows users to quickly access files stored; paragraph 45 discloses a tree view navigation to organize and display documents, where the tree view can allow a user to combine multiple document types (e.g. images and text files) into a folder for organizational purposes).
Straube fails to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Jacobson as cited:
based on a total number of users among the users who manage a folder of the folders assigned with a label representing the same attribute, set a first condition or a second condition, wherein (page 8, lines 18 – 26 discloses an online registration service to register members to use the file system; page 12, lines 17 – 29 discloses a hierarchical folder structure that can be included in each of the member research spaces where the folders can be used to store information from the link database, such as the addresses of networked resources containing relevant medical information and brief descriptions or titles corresponding to the medical information; page 13, lines 28 – 31 discloses a groups link that presents a page that allows the user to create new groups and edit existing groups where the new group function can present a page allowing the users to selectively add other members to the group; page 16, lines 2 – 7 discloses a window displaying a member interface to the sharing functionality, which includes a group and folder sharing interface)
the first condition is for recommending, for a second user other than first users among the users who manage a first file in the folder assigned with the label representing the same attribute, a first action of adding the first file to the folder assigned with the label representing the same attribute (page 17, lines 13 – 32 discloses permitting members to share information with other members where the member request (to share information) includes the identification of the intended recipient and the information to be received, where if the transfer of information is authorized, the information link is transferred into a folder included in the recipients research space), the second condition is for recommending for the second user a second action of deleting a second file managed by the second user from the folder assigned with the label representing the same attribute (page 12, lines 6 – 16 discloses an interface is provided by the application server that permits the physician to add or delete links from the database; page 13, lines 18 – 27 discloses the edit/delete link permits the user to edit or delete existing links and folders in the folder space).
The motivation to combine the teachings of Straube and Jacobson is discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Claim 13 (New). Straube and Jacobson teach the medical information processing apparatus according to claim 1. Straube discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to assign a label to each of the folders and each of the files stored in the folders based on at least one of:
(i) a content of each of the file pertaining to the medical information that the respective users intend to browse or operate or (ii) names of the folders that stores the files (paragraph 44 discloses a bookmarks window which enables a user to access various medical information and files stored within the system, and includes a file menu, data menu, docUguides menu, and more, and allows users to quickly access files stored; paragraph 45 discloses a tree view navigation to organize and display documents, where the tree view can allow a user to combine multiple document types (e.g. images and text files) into a folder for organizational purposes).
Claim(s) 3 – 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Straube et al., herein after Straube (U.S. Publication Number 2002/0007287 A1) in view of Jacobson (WO 02/06990 A1) further in view of Schachter (U.S. Publication Number 2012/0158749 A1).
Claim 3 (Currently Amended). Straube and Jacobson teach the medical information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Straube fails to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Jacobson as cited:
present the first action to the second user, based on the first condition that is set (Figure 13 discloses displaying a member interface to the sharing functionality; Figure 14 shows a screen for creating share groups; Figure 15 discloses editing share groups; Figure 16 discloses sharing groups to users; page 14, lines 1 – 6 discloses the sharing link allows the user to share groups and folders with other users; page 16, lines 2 – 7 discloses a window displaying a member interface to the sharing functionality, which includes a group and folder sharing interface; page 17, lines 13 – 32 discloses permitting members to share information with other members where the member request (to share information) includes the identification of the intended recipient and the information to be received, where if the transfer of information is authorized, the information link is transferred into a folder included in the recipients research space), and
present the second action to the second user, based on the second condition that is set (Figure 13 discloses displaying a member interface to the sharing functionality; page 17, lines 13 – 32 discloses permitting members to share information with other members where the member request (to share information) includes the identification of the intended recipient and the information to be received, where if the transfer of information is authorized, the information link is transferred into a folder included in the recipients research space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand the method of Straube to further include providing a computer system that distributes reliable medical information to users by way of a communication network by providing a user-accessible database identifying networked data resources having trustworthy medical content as disclosed by Jacobson.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to expand the method of Straube in this way to have a system that would classify medical information in a manner that would allow convenient access to individuals (Jacobson: page 2, lines 26 – 30).
Straube and Jacobson fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Schachter as cited:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
present the first action or the second action to the second user (Figure 6; paragraph 29 discloses the bookmark search engine provides an interface to receive bookmark search requests from users, to conduct searches of the bookmark packages in the bookmark package database, to generate search results, and to provide the search results to the user, possibly via the browser on the client device; paragraph 77 discloses a user interface provides search results for a user in response to a keyword search, the search results include a list of items bookmarked by the user and relevant to the keyword search).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand the method of Straube and Jacobson to further include a system and method for providing tag-based relevance recommendations of bookmarks in a bookmark and tag database as disclosed by Schachter.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to expand the method of Straube and Jacobson in this way to provide mechanisms for storing bookmarks for local and/or public use and mechanisms for enabling easy retrieval of the stored bookmarks (Schachter: paragraph 4).
Claim 4 (Currently Amended). Straube, Jacobson, and Schachter teach the medical information processing apparatus according to claim 3.
Straube fails to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Jacobson as cited:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: acquire operation information representing contents of operations by the respective users for the respective files (page 16, lines 2 – 7 discloses a window displaying a member interface to the sharing functionality, which includes a group and folder sharing interface; page 17, lines 13 – 32 discloses permitting members to share information with other members where the member request (to share information) includes the identification of the intended recipient and the information to be received, where if the transfer of information is authorized, the information link is transferred into a folder included in the recipients research space, indicating operations by the respective users); and
present the first action to the second user, based on operation information of the first users in the operation information acquired about the users and the first condition that is set (page 16, lines 2 – 7 discloses a window displaying a member interface to the sharing functionality, which includes a group and folder sharing interface; page 17, lines 13 – 32 discloses permitting members to share information with other members where the member request (to share information) includes the identification of the intended recipient and the information to be received, where if the transfer of information is authorized, the information link is transferred into a folder included in the recipients research space).
The motivation to combine the teachings of Straube, Jacobson, and Schachter is discussed in the rejection of claim 3, and incorporated herein.
Claim 5 (Currently Amended). Straube, Jacobson, and Schachter teach the medical information processing apparatus according to claim 4. Straube teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to acquire operation information representing contents of operations by the respective users for the respective files or for the respective folders that store links capable of accessing the respective files (paragraph 25 discloses an electronic archiving and retrieval of medical documents system which allows users to store, organize, locate, and retrieve files).
Claim 6 (Currently Amended). Straube, Jacobson, and Schachter teach the medical information processing apparatus according to claim 5. Straube teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
specify, for each of the folders targeted by the respective operations for the respective files included in the operation information, an attribute representing a characteristic of the folder, based on a name of the folder (paragraph 44 discloses the Bookmarks window enables the user to interact with the present invention to access various medical information and files stored within the system, and allows users to quickly access files; paragraph 68 discloses if a user stores a number of bookmarks on a particular topic (e.g. associated with the same tag), the bookmark recommendation system may be capable of informing the given user of other users with interest in the particular topic and/or of other bookmarks stored by other users that relate to the particular topic);
assign the label representing the specified attribute to each of the folders and the files stored in the folders (paragraph 44 discloses a bookmarks window which enables a user to access various medical information and files stored within the system, and includes a file menu, data menu, docUguides menu, and more; and allows users to quickly access files stored; paragraph 45 discloses a tree view navigation to organize and display documents, where the tree view can allow a user to combine multiple document types (e.g. images and text files) into a folder for organizational purposes).
Straube and Jacobson fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Schachter as cited:
count the number of labels, for each attribute, assigned to the files or the folders storing the files, for each file (paragraph 54 discloses tags are counted across all users who bookmarked the URL, and the five most used ones are chosen);
count the number of labels with the same attribute assigned to the files (paragraph 85 discloses the user finder may count only URLs of the other user that have the same tag as the tag of interest, tags related to the tag of interest, or tags related to any tag belonging to any URL associated with the tag of interest); and
based on the counted number of labels with the same attribute assigned to the files and the first condition that is set, present the action of adding the first file to the folder assigned with the label representing the same attribute to the second user (Figure 4b; paragraph 5 discloses determining a level of relatedness of a second user to the first user by comparing a first number of overlapping bookmarks that were stored in the database by the second user and that overlap the set of first bookmarks; paragraph 68 discloses if a user stores a number of bookmarks on a particular topic (e.g. associated with the same tag), the bookmark recommendation system may be capable of informing the given user of other users with interest in the particular topic and/or of other bookmarks stored by other users that relate to the particular topic).
The motivation to combine the teachings of Straube, Jacobson, and Schachter is discussed in the rejection of claim 3, and incorporated herein.
Claim 7 (Currently Amended). Straube, Jacobson, and Schachter teach the medical information processing apparatus according to claim 6.
Straube and Jacobson fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Schachter as cited:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: set, as the first condition, that an increase quantity of the number of labels with the same attribute assigned to the first file in a predetermined period is over a threshold (paragraph 6 discloses determining whether the first user has more than a threshold number of first bookmarks associated with the topic of interest; claim 2); and
when the first condition is satisfied, present the first action of adding the first file to the folder assigned with the label representing the same attribute to the second user who manages the file different from the first file using the folder assigned with the label representing the same attribute as the label set in the first condition (Figure 4b; paragraph 5 discloses determining a level of relatedness of a second user to the first user by comparing a first number of overlapping bookmarks that were stored in the database by the second user and that overlap the set of first bookmarks; paragraph 68 discloses if a user stores a number of bookmarks on a particular topic (e.g. associated with the same tag), the bookmark recommendation system may be capable of informing the given user of other users with interest in the particular topic and/or of other bookmarks stored by other users that relate to the particular topic).
The motivation to combine the teachings of Straube, Jacobson, and Schachter is discussed in the rejection of claim 3, and incorporated herein.
Claim 8 (Currently Amended). Straube, Jacobson, and Schachter teach the medical information processing apparatus according to claim 6.
Straube fails to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Jacobson as cited:
when the condition is satisfied, present an action of deleting the second file from the folder to the second user who manages the second file using the folder assigned with the label representing the same attribute as the label set in the second condition (page 12, lines 6 – 16 discloses an interface is provided by the application server that permits the physician to add or delete links from the database; page 13, lines 18 – 27 discloses the edit/delete link permits the user to edit or delete existing links and folders in the folder space).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expand the method of Straube to further include providing a computer system that distributes reliable medical information to users by way of a communication network by providing a user-accessible database identifying networked data resources having trustworthy medical content as disclosed by Jacobson.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to expand the method of Straube in this way to have a system that would classify medical information in a manner that would allow convenient access to individuals (Jacobson: page 2, lines 26 – 30).
Straube and Jacobson fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Schachter as cited:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: set, as the condition, that a decrease quantity of the number of labels with the same attribute assigned to the second file that a part of the second users stores in the folder assigned with the label representing the same attribute, in a predetermined period is over a threshold (paragraph 6 discloses determining whether the first user has more than a threshold number of first bookmarks associated with the topic of interest; claim 2).
The motivation to combine the teachings of Straube, Jacobson, and Schachter is discussed in the rejection of claim 3, and incorporated herein.
Claim 9 (Currently Amended). Straube, Jacobson, and Schachter teach the medical information processing apparatus according to claim 6.
Straube and Jacobson fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Schachter as cited:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: extract, from each of the files, a keyword representing a characteristic of the file (paragraph 37 discloses extracting words from the description and/or user notes, extracting terms from related bookmarks where the tags may include user selected keywords or other descriptors); and
specify the attribute, based on the extracted keyword (paragraph 37 discloses the tags may be based on specific attributes of the content item such as file type, and the tags may comprise individual keywords and/or groupings of tags).
The motivation to combine the teachings of Straube, Jacobson, and Schachter is discussed in the rejection of claim 3, and incorporated herein.
Claim 10 (Currently Amended). Straube, Jacobson, and Schachter teach the medical information processing apparatus according to claim 6.
Straube and Jacobson fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Schachter as cited:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: retrieve a relevant file related to a third file that the second user stores in the folder assigned with the label representing the same attribute (paragraph 6 discloses presenting the user a first link to the bookmarks of the second user, and a second link to the bookmarks of the third user);
set a third condition for recommending, for the second user, a third action of adding the relevant file to the folder assigned with the label representing the same attribute (paragraph 8 discloses the recommendation manager may enable presenting the first user a first link to the bookmarks of the second user and second link to the bookmarks of the third user, where the setting a condition for recommending is discloses as conditions set pertaining to the presentation of the file (see paragraph 55 of the present application), when, as the third condition, the relevant file in which the number of labels with the same attribute increases over a threshold in a predetermined period exists, present an action of adding the relevant file to the folder assigned with the label representing the same attribute to the second user who does not have the relevant file stored in the folder assigned with the label representing the same attribute (Figure 4b; paragraph 5 discloses determining a level of relatedness of a second user to the first user by comparing a first number of overlapping bookmarks that were stored in the database by the second user and that overlap the set of first bookmarks; paragraph 68 discloses if a user stores a number of bookmarks on a particular topic (e.g. associated with the same tag), the bookmark recommendation system may be capable of informing the given user of other users with interest in the particular topic and/or of other bookmarks stored by other users that relate to the particular topic).
The motivation to combine the teachings of Straube, Jacobson, and Schachter is discussed in the rejection of claim 3, and incorporated herein.
Claim 11 (Currently Amended). Straube, Jacobson, and Schachter teach the medical information processing apparatus according to claim 4.
Straube and Jacobson fail to explicitly teach the following limitations met by Schachter as cited:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to derive the second action, based on the operation information of the first user, in the operation information acquired about the users, assuming that any user who performs operations for each of the files more frequently than or as frequently as a threshold is the first user (paragraph 8 discloses a recommendation manager, which may determine whether the first user has more than a threshold number of first bookmarks in the set of bookmarks associated with the database where the recommendation manager may enable presenting the first user a first link to the bookmarks of the second user and second link to the bookmarks of the third user; paragraph 70 discloses the recommendation manager may enable offering recommendations when the user has stored a threshold number (e.g., 1, 10, or any other number) of bookmarks associated with at least one tag or related tags, in addition, the threshold number may be set by the user).
The motivation to combine the teachings of Straube, Jacobson, and Schachter is discussed in the rejection of claim 3, and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 22, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the order in which they were presented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant argues the recited additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements of the present claims fail to integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, the 2019 PEG guidelines recite limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
The present claims fail to demonstrate an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant argues Straube does not disclose or suggest assigning the specific criteria to a file or folder as a label and using it to set a condition for recommending file addition or deletion. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner submits Straube discloses if a user stores a number of bookmarks on a particular topic (e.g. associated with the same tag) (paragraph 68). Jacobson was cited for recommending the file addition or deletion, where Jacobson discloses an interface is provided by the application server that permits the physician to add or delete links from the database (page 12, lines 6 – 16) and the edit/delete link permits the user to edit or delete existing links and folders in the folder space (page 13, lines 18 – 27). Thus Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINE K RAPILLO whose telephone number is (571)270-3325. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Fonya Long can be reached at 571-270-5096. 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.
/K.K.R/ Examiner, Art Unit 3682
/ROBERT A SOREY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682