DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communication filed on 4 November, 2025.
Claims 1, 3, 8 - 10, 12, 17 and 19 have been amended.
Claims 4, 13 and 18 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 8 – 10, 12, 17 and 19 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4 November, 2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8 – 10, 12, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 10 and 19 recite “generating at least two optional disease treatment methods based on the status information, wherein the number of options for the at least two optional disease treatment methods is updated in response to an update of the card or the QR code and additional responses on the patient collected by the chatbot module”. The claims are directed to a computer implemented method and operations recited in terms of their functionality. The specification discloses that the functionality is performed by software executed by a general purpose computer. However, the specification fails to disclose the algorithm (e.g. the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the invention, including how to program the disclosed computer to perform the claimed function.
For example, the specification fails to disclose how optional disease treatment methods are generated based on the patient status information; or how the optional disease treatment methods are updated based on an update to the status information. Nonetheless, the claims require generating such optional disease treatment methods. Status information includes AT LEAST ONE OF patient personal information, disease information, treatment information and genetic information. Status information may be obtained by scanning a card or QR code, and by processing a response to a chatbot provided question. However, there is no disclosure as to how any of these status information items, or even how all of the items in combination, are used to generate information on optional treatment steps. In particular, the claims may be limited to receiving patient status information that ONLY includes “patient personal information”, including ONLY “the patient’s name”. No other information is required by the claim. There is no disclosure how a patient’s name alone can be used to determine medical information on a disease treatment step.
As such the claim is unreasonably broad and encompasses any mechanism to use the patient status information to provide the information leading to unpredictable results, and requiring undue experimentation to achieve the same results. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See MPEP2161.01 I citing: Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc.).
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.
The following rejection is formatted in accordance with MPEP 2106.
Claim 1 is representative. Claim 1 recites:
A medical information providing method performed by a medical information providing device including a display unit and an input/output unit comprising a scanner and a chatbot module, the method comprising:
receiving status information of a patient via scanning a card or a QR code using the scanner and processing at least one response to at least one questions on the patient provided by the chatbot module, wherein the status information includes medical information of the patient and the at least one response;
generating at least two optional disease treatment methods based on the status information, wherein a number of options for the at least two optional disease treatment methods is in inverse relation with a size of the status information, wherein the number of options for the at least two optional disease treatment methods is updated in response to an update of the card or the QR code and additional responses on the patient collected by the chatbot module; and
displaying, on the display unit, a disease treatment step for a time domain of pre-treatment, a disease treatment step for a time domain of current-treatment, and a disease treatment step for a time domain of post-treatment, wherein the disease treatment step of the time domain of post- treatment comprises the at least two optional disease treatment methods,
wherein the medical information varies in detail on the disease treatment step for each time domain based on items included in the status information;
wherein the status information includes at least one of personal information, disease information, treatment information, and genetic information,
wherein the personal information contains at least one of name, gender, and date of birth,
wherein the disease information contains at least one of diagnosis name, disease stage, and a location of metastasis,
wherein the treatment information contains at least one of surgery eligibility, surgery date, disease treatment date, and treatment medication,
wherein the genetic information contains at least one of next generation sequencing (NGS) result, immunostaining result, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) result, and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) result,
wherein the medical information includes information on the disease treatment step for each time domain for treatment of a disease corresponding to the disease information,
wherein the medical information is provided via the input/output unit using a first user interface corresponding to the disease treatment step for the time domain of pre-treatment, a second user interface corresponding to the disease treatment step for the time domain of current-treatment, a third user interface corresponding to the disease treatment step for the time domain of post-treatment, respectively;
wherein, in the input/output unit, an entire treatment journey interface that visualizes an entire treatment journey for a disease is displayed to a user of the medical information providing device, and
wherein the entire treatment journey interface includes the first user interface, the second user interface, and the third user interface.
Claim 19 recites medium with instructions executed by a processor, and Claim 10 recites a device that executes the steps of the method recited in Claim 1.
Claims 1, 3, 8 – 10, 12, 17 and 19 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), and does not include additional elements that either: 1) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or 2) that provide an inventive concept – i.e. element that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Claims are directed to an abstract idea because, when considered as a whole, the plain focus of the claims is on an abstract idea.
STEP 1
The claims are directed to a device, a method and non-transitory computer readable medium which are included in the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE
The claims, as illustrated by Claim 1, recite limitations that encompass an abstract idea including:
receiving status information of a patient via processing at least one response to at least one questions on the patient, wherein the status information includes medical information of the patient and the at least one response;
wherein the status information includes at least one of personal information, disease information, treatment information, and genetic information,
wherein the personal information contains at least one of name, gender, and date of birth,
wherein the disease information contains at least one of diagnosis name, disease stage, and a location of metastasis,
wherein the treatment information contains at least one of surgery eligibility, surgery date, disease treatment date, and treatment medication,
wherein the genetic information contains at least one of next generation sequencing (NGS) result, immunostaining result, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) result, and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) result,
generating at least two optional disease treatment methods based on the status information, wherein a number of options for the at least two optional disease treatment methods is in inverse relation with a size of the status information, wherein the number of options for the at least two optional disease treatment methods is updated in response to additional responses on the patient.
The claims, as illustrated by Claim 1, recite limitations that encompass an abstract idea within the “mental processes” grouping – concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. The claims recite receiving patient status information and providing treatment steps for different time domains. The specification discloses that medical professionals provide explanations to a patient of treatment steps for their illness. (@ 0002) As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation for the claimed process of analyzing patient status information to provide treatment steps for a patient’s illness, is a process that, except for generic computer implementation steps, can be performed in the human mind.
Collecting information, including when limited to particular content, is within the realm of abstract ideas, and analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, are mental processes within the abstract idea category (Electric Power Group v. Alstom S.A. (Fed Cir, 2015-1778, 8/1/2016).
As such, the claims recite an abstract idea within the mental process grouping.
The claims, as illustrated by Claim 1, recite limitations that encompass an abstract idea within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping –
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
The claims recite receiving patient status information and providing treatment steps over time based on the status information. This type of activity, i.e. providing treatment information based on a patient status, includes conduct that would normally occur when managing a patient’s particular illness. For example, it is routine in medicine for a doctor to receiving and analyze patient medical information when treating a patient for a particular condition. In particular, in the field of oncology, a doctor may order or request medical images, image interpretation reports, lab tests and lab test results, tissue biopsies and tissue biopsy pathology reports, etc.; at different times throughout a treatment process when treating the particular medical condition, in order to evaluate the progress of the treatment or the prognosis of the patient. As such, the claims recite an abstract idea within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO
The claims recite limitations that include additional elements beyond those that encompass the abstract idea above including:
a medical information providing device including a display unit and an input/output unit comprising a scanner and a chatbot module;
receiving status information of a patient via scanning a card or a QR code using the scanner;
displaying, on the display unit, a disease treatment step for a time domain of pre-treatment, a disease treatment step for a time domain of current-treatment, and a disease treatment step for a time domain of post-treatment, wherein the disease treatment step of the time domain of post- treatment comprises the at least two optional disease treatment methods,
wherein the medical information varies in detail on the disease treatment step for each time domain based on items included in the status information;
wherein the medical information includes information on the disease treatment step for each time domain for treatment of a disease corresponding to the disease information,
wherein the medical information is provided via the input/output unit using a first user interface corresponding to the disease treatment step for the time domain of pre-treatment, a second user interface corresponding to the disease treatment step for the time domain of current-treatment, a third user interface corresponding to the disease treatment step for the time domain of post-treatment, respectively;
wherein, in the input/output unit, an entire treatment journey interface that visualizes an entire treatment journey for a disease is displayed to a user of the medical information providing device, and
wherein the entire treatment journey interface includes the first user interface, the second user interface, and the third user interface.
However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of that idea in accordance with the MPEP. (see MPEP 2106.05)
The medical information providing device including a display unit and an input/output unit comprising a scanner and a chatbot module, is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer component. These elements merely add instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims recite extra-solution data gathering steps – i.e. receiving status information via scanning a card or a QR code using the scanner; or responses to questions. The specification does not describe any technical details relative to scanning a QR code other than using a generic scanner. Such scanners are a conventional computer element. The claims recite collecting and analyzing status information of a patient which are essentially mental processes within the abstract idea category. Merely presenting the results of abstract processes, including specific content, is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. (Electric Power Group).
Nothing in the claim recites specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database or Internet. Similarly, the specification is silent with respect to these kinds of improvements. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception by use of conventional computer functions, as is the case here, does not qualify as a particular machine, nor does the recitation of a generic computer impose meaningful limits in the claimed process. (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements recited in the claim do not integrate the abstract treatment determining process into a practical application of that process.
STEP 2B
The additional elements identified above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract treatment determining process. The additional structural elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer structure (i.e. a device/processor/scanner/chatbot, and memory, computer-readable medium). Each of the above components are disclosed in the specification as being purely conventional and/or known in the industry. For example the device is disclosed at a high level of generality as “a general purpose computer”, and is construed as a generic computer.
Scanning QR codes and processing responses to chatbot questions to obtain status information of a patient are purely conventional in medicine. Because the specification describes these functions without any technical details, Examiner concludes that they are well-known and purely conventional.
Similarly, the recited user interface is construed as a conventional computer element. “A graphic user interface so a user can select data merely recites a generic computer component and does not contribute an inventive concept to the claim. Graphical user interfaces that allow a user to select and enter information describe purely conventional features on the disclosed devices.” (Affinity Labs v. DIRECTV).
Because the specification describes these additional elements in general terms, without describing particulars, Examiner concludes that the claim limitations may be broadly, but reasonably construed, as reciting well-understood, routine and conventional computer components and techniques. The specification describes the elements in a manner that indicates that they are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars in order to satisfy U.S.C. 112. Considered as an ordered combination the limitations recited in the claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered individually. As such, the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide significantly more than the abstract treatment determining process, or an inventive concept.
The dependent claims add additional features including:
those that merely serve to further narrow the abstract idea above such as:
further limiting the number of treatments with more information; (Claim 3, 12);
further limiting the type of medical information on a treatment step (Claim 8, 17);
those that recite well-understood, routine and conventional activity or computer functions;
those that recite insignificant extra-solution activities such as:
providing questions, receiving answers and selecting and providing additional questions (Claim 9);
those that recite additional abstract ideas; or those that are an ancillary part of the abstract idea.
Examiner takes Official Notice that chatbot modules are old and well-known and purely conventional.
The limitations recited in the dependent claims, in combination with those recited in the independent claims add nothing that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, or that amounts to significantly more. These elements merely narrow the abstract idea, recite additional abstract ideas, or append conventional activity to the abstract process. As such, the additional element do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or provide an inventive concept that transforms the claims into a patent eligible invention.
The apparatus claims are no different from the method claims in substance. “The equivalence of the method, system and media claims is readily apparent.” “The only difference between the claims is the form in which they were drafted.” (Bancorp). The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer, while the apparatus claims recite generic computer components configured to implement the same idea. Specifically, Claims 10, 12, 17 and 19 merely add the generic hardware noted above that nearly every computer will include. The apparatus claim’s requirement that the same method be performed with a programmed computer does not alter the method’s patentability under U.S.C. 101 (In re Grams). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4 November, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The U.S.C. §112 Rejection
Applicant asserts that the amendment overcomes the rejection; however, it does not. The specification is silent as to how the claimed optional disease treatment methods are generated based on the patient status information, let alone how information on the entire treatment journey is generated for display.
The U.S.C. §101 Rejection
Applicant asserts that the claims recite additional elements that integrate any abstract idea into a practical application – i.e. “an improvement to the technical field of medical data management”. In particular, Applicant relies of the reasoning found in Example 42, and equates that reasoning to the pending claims. However, the key element in Example 42 is the “converting non-standard data to standard data”:
“The claim as a whole integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user.”
The pending claims does not resemble this “converting” in any way because there is no converting non-standard data into standardized data for sharing recited in any of the pending claims.
Applicant asserts an improvement to conventional systems by collecting information, and generating and displaying optional treatment methods. At best this is an improvement to an abstract idea itself, and not to any particular computer functionality. Refining treatment options based on collecting more status information, or higher quality status information is equally abstract.
Applicant asserts that “the claimed features are not well-known, routine, or conventional”; but does not identify any limitation or combination thereof that are unconventional. Receiving and displaying information is a generic computer function; and receiving information and providing treatment steps is abstract – irrespective of whether it is conventional or not.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPUB 2022/0189635 A1 to Gopalakrishnan et al. discloses a treatment plan system and method for generating or adjusting a treatment plan, and displaying a patient’s treatment journey.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to John A. Pauls whose telephone number is (571) 270-5557. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon. - Fri. 8:00 - 5:00 Eastern. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Robert Morgan can be reached at (571) 272-6773.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197.
Official replies to this Office action may now be submitted electronically by registered users of the EFS-Web system. Information on EFS-Web tools is available on the Internet at: http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/index.jsp. An EFS-Web Quick-Start Guide is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portal/efs/quick-start.pdf.
Alternatively, official replies to this Office action may still be submitted by any one of fax, mail, or hand delivery. Faxed replies should be directed to the central fax at (571) 273-8300. Mailed replies should be addressed to “Commissioner for Patents, PO Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450.” Hand delivered replies should be delivered to the “Customer Service Window, Randolph Building, 401 Dulany Street, Alexandria, VA 22314.”
/JOHN A PAULS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Date: 9 December, 2025