DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-12 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 10/3/2025.
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, 3-4, 6-7, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, & 12 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine); Claim 9 is directed to a method (i.e., a process); and Claim 10 is directed to a CRM (i.e., a manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-11 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. An information processing system comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
store certain communication information associated with a first information in the at least one memory in advance, the communication information being information recognized by a user in having conversation with others;
acquire the first information including a name of a medicine from an object image, the object image being photographed or scanned and comprising either a prescription prescribed to the user or product information of a medicine that the user wants to purchase;
select and add as second information about the medicine associated with the first information, the communication information to the first information;
present, to the user, the first and second information in association with each other;
receive, as an operation indicating the second information performed by the user, an image of a gesture made by the user;
convert the image of the gesture into communication information associated with the gesture according to the first information acquired from the object image;
show, upon receiving the operation, first information associated with the second information to a communication destination.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “methods of organizing human activity” because sending healthcare data from various parties & generating and sending a notification are associated with managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. For example, but for the system, this claim encompasses a person facilitating data access, receiving data, and outputting data in the manner described in the identified abstract idea. The Examiner notes that “method of organizing human activity” includes a person’s interaction with a computer – see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Accordingly, independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 9 & 10 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 3-4, 6-7, & 11-12 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 2-4 & 11 recite converting an image with a gesture to communication data; Claim 6 recites acquiring various health data; Claim 7 recites adding an identifier to the data. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 9 & 10, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
1. An information processing system comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
store certain communication information associated with a first information in the at least one memory in advance, the communication information being information recognized by a user in having conversation with others;
acquire the first information including a name of a medicine from an object image, the object image being photographed or scanned and comprising either a prescription prescribed to the user or product information of a medicine that the user wants to purchase;
select and add as second information about the medicine associated with the first information, the communication information to the first information;
present, to the user, the first and second information in association with each other;
receive, as an operation indicating the second information performed by the user, an image of a gesture made by the user;
convert the image of the gesture into communication information associated with the gesture according to the first information acquired from the object image;
show, upon receiving the operation, first information associated with the second information to a communication destination.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the information processing system, memory, processor; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of storing data and sending information to a communication destination, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, representative independent claim 1 and analogous independent claims 9 & 10 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims recite at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 11: This claim recites using a machine learning technique to infer information from an image and amounts to merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Claim 12: This claim recites sending data to a communication destination and merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 10 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of the information processing system, memory, processor; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of storing data and sending information to a communication destination, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-12 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waugh (US20100198401A1) in view of Prajapati (US20230316812).
As per claim 1, Waugh teaches an information processing system comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (para. 73: computer with memory); and
at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (para. 73: computer):
store certain communication information associated with a first information in the at least one memory in advance, the communication information being information recognized by a user in having conversation with others (para. 121-128: communication interface allows user to communicate with various selected parties; historical data obtained from user);
acquire the first information including a name of a medicine from an object image, the object image being photographed or scanned and comprising either a prescription prescribed to the user or product information of a medicine that the user wants to purchase (para. 111-115: user can upload prescription image taken via camera; prescription information obtained from image);
select and add as second information about the medicine associated with the first information, the communication information to the first information (para. 121-128: system extracts medication data and sends data to remote user).
present, to the user, the first and second information in association with each other (para. 121-128: system extracts medication data and sends data to remote user).
Waugh does not expressly teach
receive, as an operation indicating the second information performed by the user, an image of a gesture made by the user;
convert the image of the gesture into communication information associated with the gesture according to the first information acquired from the object image;
show, upon receiving the operation, first information associated with the second information to a communication destination.
Prajapati, however, teaches to using a machine learning model to analyze an image of a patient communication with sign language and converting the image into textual data (para. 4, 32). Prajapati also teaches to sending the medication and textual data to a provider (para. 92-95).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Prajapati with Waugh based on the motivation of allowing a doctor, through using the system, understand her patient is in pain and is in need of medication when interacting with a hearing impaired patient (Prajapati – para. 38).
As per claim 3, Waugh and Prajapati teach the information processing system according to claim 1. Waugh does not expressly teach wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to convert an image of sign language indicated by the user into the communication information.
Prajapati, however, teaches to using a machine learning model to analyze an image of a patient communication with sign language and converting the image into textual data which is displayed in a communication interface (para. 4, 32).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 4, Waugh and Prajapati teach the information processing system according to claim 3. Waugh does not expressly teach wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to convert, as the communication information, the image of the sign language indicated by the user into text information or voice information.
Prajapati, however, teaches to using a machine learning model to analyze an image of a patient communication with sign language and converting the image into textual data which is displayed in a communication interface (para. 4, 32).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 6, Waugh and Prajapati teach the information processing system according to claim 1. Waugh teaches wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to acquire, as the first information, at least one of a name of a medicine, a dosage of the medicine, and usage of the medicine (para. 111-115: user can upload prescription image taken via camera; prescription information obtained from image).
Claims 9-10 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claim 1, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
As per claim 11, Waugh and Prajapati teach information processing system according to claim 10. Waugh teaches shows the first information associated with the second information to the communication destination so as to enable the user and the pharmacist to communicate with each other by using a communication method optimized for the user (para. 121-128: system extracts medication data and sends data to remote user; user and provider can communicate via video conference interface).
Joao does not expressly teach wherein processor is configured to execute the instructions to infer the second information from an image of an operation performed by the user by using a machine learning technique, and shows the first information associated with the second information to the communication destination so as to enable the user and the pharmacist to communicate with each other by using a communication method optimized for the user.
Prajapati, however, teaches to using a machine learning model to analyze an image of a patient communication with sign language and converting the image into textual data which is displayed in a communication interface (para. 4, 32).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 12, Waugh and Prajapati teach information processing system according to claim 1. Waugh teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to show the first information associated with the second information to the communication destination so that the user makes a decision regarding taking the medicine (para. 121-131: system extracts medication data and sends data to remote user; user and provider can communicate via video conference interface; prescription data sent back to user for display).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waugh (US20100198401A1) in view of Prajapati (US20230316812) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Joao (US20210319895).
As per claim 7, Waugh and Prajapati teach the information processing system according to claim 1, but do not expressly teach wherein the processor is configured to execute the instructions to add a unique identifier to the first information as the second information.
Joao, however, teaches to a unique identifier such as ip address can be added to communication data (para. 58).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Joao with Waugh and Prajapati based on the motivation of facilitate communications and data and/or information exchange with and/or between an individual or a patient and a healthcare provider or a healthcare professional (Joao – para. 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 regarding claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-12 being rejected under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant claims that:
The claims are not simply managing personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people and provide specific technological improvements such as allowing for a person having difficulty in hearing to communicate with other people.
The Examiner, however, asserts that that there is no indication here that the claimed invention addresses a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer technology or a technical field; the Applicant does not provide adequate evidence or technical reasoning how the process improves the efficiency of the computer or a technical field, as opposed to the efficiency of the process, or of any other technological aspect of the computer or technical field. Further, the problems the invention is attempting to solve are “allowing for a person having difficulty in hearing to communicate with other people”. These are not technological problems, but business and human behavior problems. The solution provided here has not been described or claimed as anything more than a generic use of existing technology performing based, purely conventional functions of a computer. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and are not directed significantly more than an abstract idea.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 10-11 regarding claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-12 being rejected under 35 USC § 102 & 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hwang (US20240428958) teaches to a communication session may be conducted between a first user device associated with a patient and a second user device associated with a healthcare provider as part of a telehealth session
McGarvey (US20210151199) teaches to a tool for synchronous and asynchronous communication between a patient, such as a pandemic patient, a plurality of healthcare providers, one or more EMR/EHR systems, and one or more third-party service provider systems.
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 Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619