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 the Application
This communication is in response to amendments and remarks filed on August 5, 2025.
Claim Status
Claims 1-16 were amended on August 5, 2025 and are addressed below.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding the limitation: “generate symptom information regarding a symptom of the user, based on input information satisfying a predetermined condition among the input information” of claims 1, 15 and 16, please note that as claimed, the symptom information is not generated by using the claimed input information (limitation: “acquire input information”). As best understood, the symptom information is generated independent of the acquired input information. Therefore, any limitations further narrowing the input, are interpreted as non-functional descriptive material which have no patentable weight. See claims 2, 5-9.
Claim 16 recites “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program for causing at least one processor provided in an information processing apparatus to execute processing of:…”. Claim 16 further recites: “wherein the biological information is collected by a biological information measurement device that includes a sensor, and that measures biological information of the user”. Please note that the wherein limitation is outside the scope of the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and thus has no patentable weight.
Claims 1, 15 and 16 have been amended to encompass a “user”. However, any action, purpose or function performed to or by a user is outside the scope of the claims. Therefore, do not have patentable weight. Please also see MPEP 2105 III titled “HUMAN ORGANISMS ARE NONSTATUTORY SUBJECT MATTER”.
The examiner notes that “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure” (MPEP 2111.04). See claims 2, 5, 8, 9.
Although these recitations have been addressed with prior art, it is only to evidence the breadth of knowledge in the art, and not as a tacit agreement that the recitations further limit the claimed method or structures.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-16 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: "generate symptom information regarding a symptom of the user, based on input information satisfying a predetermined condition among the input information". It is unclear how the claimed "input information" would satisfy a predetermined condition among itself.
Claims 15 and 16 recite similar limitations and are rejected for the reasons.
Regarding claim 4 which depends from claim 1, it is unclear whether the recitation of "a measurement device that measures the biological information" refers to, or introduces a new device. See claim 1, where "a biological information measurement device" is originally claimed.
Claim 15 recites (emphasis added): "An information processing method executed by at least one processor provided in an information processing apparatus, the information processing method comprising: providing a biological information measurement device that includes a sensor, and that measures biological information of a user". It is unclear how the claimed processor provides the claimed device.
Claim 15 further recites (emphasis added): “…input information satisfying a predetermined condition within among the input information…”. It is unclear whether it should be interpreted as within or among.
Claims 2-14 depend from claim 1 and do not cure the deficiencies set forth above.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Determining that a claim falls within one of the four enumerated categories of patentable subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). (MPEP 2106.03)
Claims 1-14 and 16 describe tangible system components, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., machine or manufacture. Claim 15 recites a series of steps, thus falling within one of the four statutory classes; i.e., a process.
Step 2A, Prong One: Evaluating whether the claim(s) recite(s) a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. (MPEP 2106.04).
Representative claim 1 recites:
A medical inquiry system comprising:
a biological information measurement device that includes a sensor, and that measures biological information of a user, and
an information processing apparatus including at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
acquire input information, that is input to the information processing apparatus by the user;
generate symptom information regarding a symptom of the user, based on input information satisfying a predetermined condition among the input information, and biological information of the user at a point in time corresponding to a point in time when the input information satisfying the condition is input;
enter the symptom information in a medical questionnaire; and
display the medical questionnaire on a display of the information processing apparatus.
The limitations of acquire input information; and generate symptom information regarding a symptom of the user, based on input information satisfying a predetermined condition among the input information, and biological information of the user at a point in time corresponding to a point in time when the input information satisfying the condition is input, enter the symptom information in a medical questionnaire as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “an information processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processing apparatus” and “processor” language, “acquire” and “generate” in the context of this claim encompasses a person acquiring input information and generating symptom information regarding a symptom of a user for the purposes of filling out an intake form (e.g., a nurse helping a patient fill out a paper intake form acquires information observed from the patient, and comes up with symptom details to write on the form).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas1 .
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In addition, the limitations identified above, in addition to enter the symptom information in a medical questionnaire, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, exemplify relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the “processing apparatus” and “processor”, nothing in the claim elements disqualifies the steps from being interactions between people including social activities. For example, but for the “processing apparatus” and “processor”, language, the steps of “acquire”, “generate” and “enter” in the context of this claim encompasses a person acquiring information and generating symptom information regarding a symptom of a user, then entering such information in an intake form (e.g., a nurse helping a patient fill out a paper intake form acquires information observed from the patient, and comes up with symptom details to write on the form).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas2
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Independent claims 15 and 16 recite the same abstract idea as identified above and dependent claims 2-14 further narrow it.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. Prong Two distinguishes claims that are "directed to" the recited judicial exception from claims that are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
a biological information measurement device that includes a sensor, and that measures biological information of a user (claims 1 and 15. As noted above, this element does not have patentable weight in claim 16);
information processing apparatus and processor (claims 1 and 15);
non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 16);
display the medical questionnaire on a display of the information processing apparatus.
acquire the biological information from a measurement device that measures the biological information, through communication with the measurement device (claim 4);
application installed (claim 6);
storage medium (claim 10 and 14);
transmit a completed medical questionnaire/symptom information to a predetermined transmission destination (claim 11 and 13)
The limitations of “processing apparatus”, “processor”; “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”; “application installed” and “storage medium” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions) such that they amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. (MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception).
The claimed limitations of acquire the biological information from a measurement device that measures the biological information, through communication with the measurement device, display the medical questionnaire on a display of the information processing apparatus, and transmit a completed medical questionnaire/symptom information to a predetermined transmission destination, these limitations are incidental to the primary process and are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim, thus constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, these limitations alone and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity).
Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Identifying whether there are any additional elements (features/limitations/steps) recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s), and then evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they contribute an inventive concept (i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s)). (MPEP 2106.05)
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, the additional elements of “processing apparatus”, “processor”; “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”; “application installed” and “storage medium”, alone and in combination amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding the limitations acquire the biological information from a measurement device that measures the biological information, through communication with the measurement device, display the medical questionnaire on a display of the information processing apparatus, and transmit a completed medical questionnaire/symptom information to a predetermined transmission destination, these limitations, alone and in combination, are old and well-known. For example, when filling out a clinical form, a person feeling unwell may take their temperature and input it on the form to then be displayed and provided to the medical team. See also e.g., Liu; Yadong US 20170100067 A1 published 2017-04-13 which recites in part “For example, an Apple watch relies on a wirelessly connected iPhone (e.g., iPhone 5 or above) to perform many of its default functions (e.g., email and texting). Unless explicitly stated, a wearable device as described herein is assumed to work independently, capable of collecting biological data and transporting the data to a designated server (e.g., the server 110 of FIG. 1A) with or without a separate device (i.e., a smartphone or a desktop via a wireless link).”. Accordingly, they define only well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Therefore, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception and cannot provide an inventive concept. (MPEP 2106.05(d) Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity).
Therefore, claims 1-16 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Deno et al. (US 20210134403 A1, hereinafter Deno).
As per claim 1, Deno discloses A medical inquiry system comprising:
a biological information measurement device that includes a sensor, and that measures biological information of a user ([0061] “Mobile information terminals UT1 to UTk are constituted by, for example, smart phones, tablet terminals, and portable personal computers, and each have a function of respectively acquiring measurement data acquired by sensing devices SS1 to SSk via a near-range wireless network and storing the measurement data as the PHR data.” [0062] “As the sensing devices SS1 to SSk, a blood pressure monitor, an electrocardiograph, a thermometer, an activity meter, a weight scale, a body composition meter, and a biological information measuring device such as a wearable terminal or a health meter equipped with the measurement functions of these measurement instrument…”), and
an information processing apparatus including at least one processor, wherein the at least one processor is configured to ([0039] e.g., a tablet terminal, a personal computer, or a mobile information terminal such as a smart phone possessed by the patient):
acquire input information, that is input to the information processing apparatus by the user ([0008] “receive input data of statement information regarding a symptom of the patient.”);
generate symptom information regarding a symptom of the user, based on input information satisfying a predetermined condition ([0008] “receive input data of statement information regarding a symptom of the patient and add the input data to the medical questionnaire basic data and create medical questionnaire data of the patient, and an output unit configured to output the medical questionnaire data being created.”), and biological information of the user at a point in time corresponding to a point in time when the input information satisfying the condition is input ([0118] “…the latest health data, lifestyle data, and the like related to the contents of the statement data of the patient described above may be selected from the PHR data DT2 and pasted into the biological information entry field of the medical questionnaire template data described above.” [0097] “Furthermore, information corresponding to "blood pressure", "height", "weight", and "today's body temperature" are respectively selected from the PHR data DT2 and entered into the biological information entry field Bl of the medical questionnaire template data.”);
enter the symptom information in a medical questionnaire ([0008] “… add the input data to the medical questionnaire basic data and create medical questionnaire data of the patient...”); and
display the medical questionnaire on a display of the information processing apparatus ([0008] “… output the medical questionnaire data being created.”).
As per claim 2, the medical inquiry system according to claim 1, Deno further discloses wherein the input information satisfying the condition is information including a content related to a physical condition, a symptom, health, feeling, emotion, or a disease name of the user ([0021] “According to the sixth aspect, the patient or the medical staff can input a symptom, for example, by simply selecting an applicable symptom from the list information of input candidates by a touch operation, making it possible to further reduce the time and effort required to create the medical questionnaire.”).
As per claim 3, the medical inquiry system according to claim 1, Deno further discloses wherein the processor is configured to generate the symptom information based on biological information of the user at a point in time corresponding to a point in time when the input information satisfying the condition is input, and the input information satisfying the condition ([0043] “The PHR data acquisition unit 1b acquires the PHR data of the patient from a mobile information terminal 2 such as a smart phone possessed by the patient. The PHR data include health data indicating a health state of the user and lifestyle data indicating a lifestyle state of the user. The health data include biometric data such as, for example, height, weight, blood pressure value, heart rate, blood glucose level, and body temperature.”).
As per claim 4, the medical inquiry system according to claim 3, Deno further discloses wherein the processor is configured to acquire the biological information from a measurement device that measures the biological information, through communication with the measurement device ([0061] “Mobile information terminals UT1 to UTk are constituted by, for example, smart phones, tablet terminals, and portable personal computers, and each have a function of respectively acquiring measurement data acquired by sensing devices SS1 to SSk via a near-range wireless network and storing the measurement data as the PHR data.” [0062] “As the sensing devices SS1 to SSk, a blood pressure monitor, an electrocardiograph, a thermometer, an activity meter, a weight scale, a body composition meter, and a biological information measuring device such as a wearable terminal or a health meter equipped with the measurement functions of these measurement instrument…”).
As per claim 5, the medical inquiry system according to claim 1,, Deno further discloses wherein the input information includes a text input to the information processing apparatus or a selection item selected by using the information processing apparatus ([0020] “… display list information of input candidates for an incomplete medical interview item included in the medical questionnaire basic data.”).
As per claim 6, the medical inquiry system according to claim 1, Deno further discloses wherein the input information is information input on an application installed on the information processing apparatus ([0039] “Note that the medical questionnaire creation assist device 1 is not limited to a tablet terminal, and may be a personal computer or a portable personal computer installed in a waiting room of a medical institution or the like, or may be provided as one of the enhanced functions on a mobile information terminal such as a smart phone possessed by the patient”).
As per claim 8, the medical inquiry system according to claim 1, Deno further discloses wherein the input information includes a content transmitted or dispatched to a specified or unspecified party ([0038] “A medical questionnaire creation assist device 1 is used in, for example, a medical institution such as a hospital, a doctor office, or a clinic, by a patient him or herself or a medical staff member such as a nurse to create a medical questionnaire of the patient, and is constituted by, for example, a tablet terminal”).
As per claim 10, the medical inquiry system according to claim 1, Deno further discloses wherein the processor is configured to: store, in a storage medium, input date and time information indicating date and time when the input information is input, in association with the input information ([0097] “…the medical questionnaire data creation unit 117 enters the date and time of creation or the date and time of measurement of the data….”)
As per claim 11, the medical inquiry system according to claim 1, Deno further discloses wherein the processor is configured to transmit the symptom information to a predetermined transmission destination ([0107] “…transmits the medical questionnaire completed data IVS to the physician terminal DT via the communication I/F 13. Note that the medical questionnaire completed data IVS may be transmitted directly to the EMR server MSV.” Figure 6, sample questionnaire)
As per claim 12, the medical inquiry system according to claim 1, Deno further discloses wherein the processor is configured to enter, in the medical questionnaire, an answer to a medical questionnaire item on the medical questionnaire based on the symptom information ([0118] “…Then, at last, the latest health data, lifestyle data, and the like related to the contents of the statement data of the patient described above may be selected from the PHR data DT2 and pasted into the biological information entry field of the medical questionnaire template data described above.” [0122] “the entry order tend to be inaccurate. In contrast, when the medical interview items having high importance are displayed in the beginning of the medical questionnaire as described above, it is more likely that more accurate answers will be entered for the important medical interview items.”).
As per claim 13, the medical inquiry system according to claim 12, Deno further discloses wherein the processor is configured to transmit a completed medical questionnaire to a predetermined transmission destination ([0107] “…transmits the medical questionnaire completed data IVS to the physician terminal DT via the communication I/F 13. Note that the medical questionnaire completed data IVS may be transmitted directly to the EMR server MSV.” Figure 6, sample questionnaire).
As per claim 14, the medical inquiry system according to claim 1, Deno further discloses wherein the processor is configured to enter personal information, which is to be entered in the medical questionnaire, in the medical questionnaire based on personal information of the user stored in advance in a storage medium ([0044] “The EHR/EMR data acquisition unit le acquires the EHR data or the EMR data of the patient from an HER server 3 or an EMR server 4. The EHR data or the EMR data include patient basic data and clinical data. The patient basic data include, for example, name, gender, date of birth, address, contact information, and occupation. The clinical data include, for example, medical examination data and information on an electronic chart created by a physician. [0090] As a result of the determination described above, when the patient is registered, in step S14, the medical questionnaire data creation unit 117 instructs the EHR/EMR data acquisition unit 113 to acquire the EHR data or the EMR data.”).
As per claims 15-16, these claims recite substantially similar limitations as claim 1 and are rejected using the same art and rationale above.
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.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deno in view of Prakash et al. (US 20140278513 A1, hereinafter Prakash).
As per claim 7, the medical inquiry system according to claim 1, Deno does not explicitly disclose wherein the input information includes a search keyword input to a search engine for searching for information on a network.
However, Deno discloses wherein the input information includes patient related information; e.g., lifestyle ([0043]) and Prakash teaches a system for aggregating patient lifestyle information input from different sources, so personalized query responses, alerts, messages, reminders, etc. can be generated (Prakash, Figure 1), wherein the input information includes a search keyword input to a search engine for searching for information on a network (Prakash [0065] “queries (e.g., “Why does my arm hurt after exercise?") might be categorized as a "symptom-related" question…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include search keyword input to a search engine for searching for information on a network as taught by Prakash in the patient related information of Deno, in order to help the patient remember when certain health issues began and thus provide more accurate medical information on an intake form, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per claim 9, the medical inquiry system according to claim 1, Deno does not explicitly disclose wherein the input information includes information on a product or service that has been purchased or a product or service that has been attempted to be purchased, through information communication via a network.
However, Deno discloses wherein the input information includes patient related information; e.g., lifestyle ([0043]) and Prakash teaches a system for aggregating patient lifestyle information input from different sources, so personalized query responses, alerts, messages, reminders, etc. can be generated (See Figure 1), wherein the input information includes information on a product or service that has been purchased or a product or service that has been attempted to be purchased, through information communication via a network ([0053] “User Profiles 122 also include indirect "procedural" interaction data and metadata, such as the nature and frequency of interactions with both BSA system 100 and External Data Sources 160 (e.g., number and frequency of purchases of health-related goods and services…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include input information includes information on a product or service that has been purchased or a product or service that has been attempted to be purchased, through information communication via a network as taught by Prakash in the patient related information of Deno, in order to help the patient remember when certain health issues began and thus provide more accurate medical information on an intake form, and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Saito Hiroyuki. Document ID: JP-2019091219-A. Date published: 2019-06-13 Application No: JP 2017219196 A. Discloses an interview style medical intake form.
Mizuho Shinya et al. Document ID: JP-2017021724-A. Date Published: 2017-01-26. Application No: JP 2015140865 A. Discloses an interview style medical intake form that gathers relevant data from purchase history (purchase history storage unit 101), email messages (mail history storage unit 102) and chat style information (talk history storage unit 103).
Tanaka, Ritsuko. WO 2004/104880 A1. Publication Date: 2004-12-02. Application Number: PCT/JP0306/537. Discloses an automatic interview style medical intake form.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted August 5, 2025 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
35 USC 101
Applicant argues
A biological information measurement device that includes a sensor performs functions that cannot be performed entirely within the human mind, therefore it is believed that the presently amended claims cannot be considered to be directed to a mental process.
Further, in order to clarify user interaction, the claims are amended to explicitly recite the feature of displaying the medical questionnaire on a display of the information processing apparatus.
In response, it is respectfully submitted that in the rejection, such elements are addressed as additional limitations beyond the abstract idea (Mental Processes and Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity), and not as part of the abstract idea itself.
Applicant further argues (italicized emphasis added)
Moreover, it is believed that the claimed invention makes the remarkable technical contribution of enabling the estimation of a symptom of a user from input information to generate symptom information even if the user is not clearly aware of his/her symptom, and enabling accurate input of information in a medical questionnaire for the symptom of the user (paragraph [0053]), by generating the symptom information based on the input information that is input to an information processing apparatus by the user, and biological information of the user, and by displaying a medical questionnaire in which the symptom information is entered.
In response, improvements to technology refer to limitations which are beyond the abstract idea. The functions stated above may be improvements to an abstract idea, but not to anything beyond the abstract idea. In fact, enabling the estimation of a symptom of a user from input information to generate symptom information even if the user is not clearly aware of his/her symptom, and enabling accurate input of information in a medical questionnaire for the symptom of the user, by generating the symptom information based on the input information that is input to an information processing apparatus [generic computer] by the user, and biological information of the user, and by displaying a medical questionnaire in which the symptom information is entered, are all functions that could be performed by people and do not require any technology other than a generic computer. Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that there is no technical improvement claimed.
35 USC 102 as being anticipated by Deno (US 2021/0134403)
Applicant argues:
Deno appears to disclose generating and displaying medical questionnaire data (step S16 in Fig. 5), by use of biological information from sensing devices SS1 to SSk that can be a wearable terminal (paragraph [0062]), as well as data from an electronic medical records (EMR) server MSV or an electronic health records (EHR) sever HSV, as shown in Fig. 2. However, referring to paragraphs [0008] to [0010] and [0021] of Deno for example, although it appears that symptom information is input by a patient or a medical staff, it is believed that symptom information is not generated on a device or terminal side. Therefore, it is believed that Deno fails to teach the subject matter of amended claim 1.
In response, it is respectfully submitted that the citations provided disclose the claimed elements, however, additional paragraphs expand on the provided citations, e.g., [0026] “a medical questionnaire data creation unit configured to select, from at least one of the clinical data and the health management data being acquired, data related to the statement information, and add the data being selected to the medical questionnaire basic data, and create medical questionnaire data of the patient”
Therefore, Deno anticipates the invention.
35 USC 103 as obvious over Deno in view of Prakash (US 2014/0278513)
No specific arguments have been made.
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 HAJIME ROJAS whose telephone number is (571)270-5491. The examiner can normally be reached Th-Fr, M-T 8AM - 5PM ET.
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.
/HAJIME ROJAS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3682
1 Mental Processes
concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
2 Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk)
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)