DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were originally filed for examination and pending on February 26, 2024. On October 16, 2025, claims 1-20 were subject to a restriction/election requirement (the “October 16, 2025 Restriction/Election Requirement”). On November 21, 2025, Applicant elected claims 1-11, 15, 17, and 19 (Invention I) without traverse, in a response to the October 16, 2025 Restriction/Election Requirement (the “November 21, 2025 Response to Restriction Requirement”). As such, pursuant to the November 21, 2025 Response to Restriction Requirement, claims 1-20 as originally filed on February 26, 2024 are currently pending: of which (i) claims 1-11, 15, 17, and 19 are elected and examined; and (ii) claims 12-14, 16, 18, and 20 are non-elected and withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-11, 15, 17, and 19, as originally filed on February 26, 2024, are subject to the non-final office action below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 26, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and has been considered by the examiner.
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 1-11, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP § 2106 (hereinafter referred to as the “2019 Revised PEG”).
Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo Test
Following Step 1 of the 2019 Revised PEG, claims 1-11 are directed to a patient information processing method, which is within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a process). See MPEP § 2106.03. Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, which is also within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a manufacture). See id. Claim 17 is directed to a patient information processing device, which is also within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a machine or apparatus). See id. Claim 19 is directed to a patient information processing system, which is also within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., a machine or apparatus). See id.
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG - Prong One
Following Prong One of Step 2A of the 2019 PEG, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. See MPEP §2106.04. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: (1) Mathematical Concepts; (2) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity, and (3) Mental Processes. See MPEP § 2106.04(a).
Claims 1-11, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Representative independent claims 1, 15, 17, and 19 include limitations that recite an abstract idea. Note that independent claim 19 is directed to a patient information processing system, while claim 1 covers the matching patient information processing method, claim 15 covers the matching non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and claim 17 covers the matching patient information processing device. Specifically, independent claim 19 recites the following limitations:
A patient information processing system comprising:
a server; and
a display terminal communicably connected to the server,
wherein the patient information processing system is configured to:
obtain a plurality of pieces of vital data of a patient;
obtain information indicating a content and a time of a treatment performed on the patient; and
cause a display to display information indicating at least one of the plurality of pieces of vital data or an index associated with the plurality of pieces of vital data, and information indicating the content and the time of the treatment.
However, the Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See 2019 Revised PEG. The Mental Processes category covers concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) (i.e., a patient information processing method, comprising: obtaining a plurality of pieces of vital data of a patient; obtaining information indicating a content and a time of a treatment performed on the patient; and displaying information related to the obtained data/information). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). That is, other than reciting some computer components and functions (the foregoing limitations in claims 19 which are not underlined), the context of claims 1, 15, 17, and 19 encompass concepts that are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion) (i.e., a patient information processing method, comprising: obtaining a plurality of pieces of vital data of a patient; obtaining information indicating a content and a time of a treatment performed on the patient; and displaying information related to the obtained data/information).
The aforementioned claim limitations described in claims 1, 15, 17, and 19 are analogous to claim limitations directed toward concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper, because they merely recite limitations which encompass a person mentally and/or manually: (1) obtaining a plurality of pieces of vital data of a patient (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally and/or manually obtain vital sign data such as by visually reviewing it); (2) obtaining information indicating a content and a time of a treatment performed on the patient (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could mentally and/or manually obtain information related to a content and time of a treatment performed on a patient such as by visually reviewing it); and (3) displaying information related to the obtained data/information (i.e., a type of observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion where a person could manually displaying the obtained information by writing it down on a piece of paper and holding it up for viewing by others).
Further, Applicant’s claims are similar to claims which have been held to recite an abstract mental process. For example, the Federal Circuit held the a claim directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis”, where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality amounted to steps that could practically be performed in the human mind. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) (citing Electric Power Group g. Alstom, S.A.). Similarly, Applicant’s claims recite steps for collecting information (e.g., in this case, obtaining the vital data and the information indicating a content and time of a treatment performed on a patient); analyzing the data (not applicable for the independent claims in this case, because there are not any steps directed to analyzing the obtained information); and displaying certain results about the collection and analysis (i.e., in this case, displaying at least one of the plurality of pieces of vital data or an index associated with the plurality of pieces of vital data, and the information indicating the content and the time of the treatment), at a high level of generality. Therefore, the aforementioned underlined claim limitations may reasonably be interpreted as mental/manual observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions made by a person, such as a healthcare professional. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers concepts which are capable of being performed in the human mind or encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with the aid of a pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See 2019 Revised PEG. Accordingly, claims 1, 15, 17, and 19 recite an abstract idea that falls within the Mental Processes category.
Furthermore, Examiner notes that dependent claims 2-11 further define the at least one abstract idea (and thus fail to make the abstract idea any less abstract) as set forth below. Examiner notes that: (1) dependent claims 2-6 include limitations that are deemed to be additional elements, and require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A; and (2) dependent claims 7-11 do not provide any limitations that are deemed to be additional elements which require further analysis under Prong Two of Step 2A. For example, claim 4 recites the additional mental step of obtaining information indicating a hospitalization time of the patient, and displaying the information indicating the hospitalization time of the patient; and claim 6 recites, in part, further details for narrowing down the time of vital data that is obtained in claim 1. Moreover, claims 7-11 merely recite further steps for calculating various scores related to the obtained information and changing thresholds/reference ranges for the vital data (i.e., these steps are deemed to be reasonably performed mentally, because they add additional steps that could be observations, evaluations, judgments, and/or opinions made by a person, such as a healthcare professional).
Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG – Prong Two
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the 2019 Revised PEG, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 Revised PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claims are indicative of integrating the abstract idea 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.” See MPEP §§ 2106.05 (f)-(h).
In the present case, for independent claim 19, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
A patient information processing system (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) comprising:
a server (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); and
a display terminal communicably connected to the server (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)),
wherein the patient information processing system is configured to (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
obtain a plurality of pieces of vital data of a patient;
obtain information indicating a content and a time of a treatment performed on the patient; and
cause a display (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) to display information indicating at least one of the plurality of pieces of vital data or an index associated with the plurality of pieces of vital data, and information indicating the content and the time of the treatment (adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving or transmitting data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
However, the recitation of these generic computer components and functions in claims 1, 15, 17, and 19 are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., using a generic patient information processing device, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, and system, comprising: one or more processors; one or more memories; a server; and display terminal to perform the abstract idea of: a patient information processing method, comprising: obtaining a plurality of pieces of vital data of a patient; and obtaining information indicating a content and a time of a treatment performed on the patient), such that it amounts to no more than: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or is the equivalent of) with the judicial exception; mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; (2) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and (3) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)-(h). 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.
- The following is an example of court decisions that demonstrate merely applying instructions by reciting the computer structure as a tool to implement the claimed limitations (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(f)):
- Invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, e.g. see, Affinity Labs v. DirecTV – similarly, the current invention invokes computers (i.e., the patient information processing device; non-transitory computer readable storage medium; patient information processing system; one or more processors; one or more memories; a server; and display terminal) to perform the existing processes of: obtaining a plurality of pieces of vital data of a patient; and obtaining information indicating a content and a time of a treatment performed on the patient.
- Using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data), e.g. see, TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC – similarly, the current invention invokes the patient information processing device; non-transitory computer readable storage medium; patient information processing system; one or more processors; one or more memories; a server; and display terminal, in their ordinary capacity to obtain information (i.e., collect data) and display the information.
- Requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA) – similarly, the current invention requires configuring the computing system (i.e., where the one or more non-transitory computer readable storage medium and one or more memories configured to store computer-readable instructions are deemed to be the equivalent of implementing generic software) to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer (e.g., cause a display to display information indicating at least one of the plurality of pieces of vital data or an index associated with the plurality of pieces of vital data, and information indicating the content and the time of the treatment).
- The following is an example of an insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(g)):
- Examples of Mere Data Gathering/Mere Data Outputting:
- Printing or downloading generated menus, e.g., see Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc. – similarly, the step directed to: “causing a display to display information indicating at least one of the plurality of pieces of vital data or an index associated with the plurality of pieces of vital data, and information indicating the content and the time of the treatment”, described in claims 1, 15, 17, and 19, is deemed to be necessary data outputting, because this step does not add a meaningful limit to the process of obtaining the information (i.e., displaying the information on a display of the patient information processing system and device represents necessary data outputting, because presenting/displaying data is necessary in order to convey this information to a user.).
Thus, the additional elements in independent claims 1, 15, 17, and 19 are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. Similarly, dependent claims 7-11 do not recite any additional elements outside of those identified as being directed to the abstract idea described above. Examiner notes that dependent claims 2-6 recite the following additional elements identified in bold font below (with limitations deemed to be part of the above identified abstract idea identified in underlined font):
further comprising: a step of setting a visual mode of the information indicating the content and the time of the treatment, in accordance with the content and/or the time of the treatment (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claim 2);
further comprising: a step of setting a visual mode of the information indicating the plurality of pieces of vital data, in accordance with a comparison between a value of each of the plurality of pieces of vital data and a threshold set for each of the plurality of pieces of vital data (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claim 3);
further comprising: a step of obtaining information indicating a hospitalization time of the patient; and a step of causing the display to (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding insignificant extra-solution activity as noted below, see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of receiving data over a network, as evidenced by the Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec case, as noted below in the Step 2B Analysis Section, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) further display the information indicating the hospitalization time of the patient (as described in claim 4);
further comprising: a step of setting a visual mode of the information indicating the hospitalization time of the patient, in accordance with a comparison between the hospitalization time and a threshold set for the hospitalization time (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claim 5); and
wherein the plurality of pieces of vital data includes first vital data related to a specific treatment, and the step of setting a visual mode of information indicating the first vital data includes: a step of changing a first threshold set for the first vital data, in a case where the specific treatment is performed on the patient; and a step of setting a visual mode of the information indicating the first vital data, in accordance with a comparison between a value of the first vital data and the changed first threshold (the Examiner submits that this additional element amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) (as described in claim 6).
As such, the additional elements in claims 1-6, 15, 17, and 19 are not indicative of integrating the judicial exception 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, unlike the claims that have been held as a whole to be directed to an improvement or otherwise directed to something more than the abstract idea, claims 1-11, 15, 17, and 19: (1) are not directed to improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field similar to the Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp. case (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (2) do not apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)); (3) do not apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)); (4) do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); nor do they (5) 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 whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(e) and MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)). For these reasons, claims 1-11, 15, 17, and 19 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B of the 2019 Revised PEG
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 Revised PEG, claims 1-11, 15, 17, and 19 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 abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of claims 1-6, 15, 17, and 19 amount to no more than: (1) adding the words “apply it” (or is the equivalent of) with the judicial exception; mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer; or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; (2) adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and (3) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(f)-(h). Further the additional elements, other than the abstract idea per se, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to no more than limitations consistent with what the courts recognize, or those having ordinary skill in the art would recognize, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional computer components. See MPEP § 2106.05 (d).
Specifically, the Examiner submits that the additional elements of claims 1-6, 15, 17, and 19, as recited, the non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program comprising instructions; computer; patient information processing device; patient information processing system; one or more processors; one or more memories configured to store a computer-readable instruction; server; display terminal communicably connected to the server; and the steps of: “cause a display to”; “a step of setting a visual mode of the information indicating the content and the time of the treatment, in accordance with the content and/or the time of the treatment”; “a step of setting a visual mode of the information indicating the plurality of pieces of vital data, in accordance with a comparison between a value of each of the plurality of pieces of vital data and a threshold set for each of the plurality of pieces of vital data”; “a step of causing the display to”; “a step of setting a visual mode of the information indicating the hospitalization time of the patient, in accordance with a comparison between the hospitalization time and a threshold set for the hospitalization time”; and “a step of setting a visual mode of the information indicating the first vital data, in accordance with a comparison between a value of the first vital data and the changed first threshold”, are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
- In regard to the non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program comprising instructions; computer; patient information processing device; patient information processing system; one or more processors; one or more memories configured to store a computer-readable instruction; server; display terminal communicably connected to the server; and the steps of: “a step of setting a visual mode of the information indicating the content and the time of the treatment, in accordance with the content and/or the time of the treatment”; “a step of setting a visual mode of the information indicating the plurality of pieces of vital data, in accordance with a comparison between a value of each of the plurality of pieces of vital data and a threshold set for each of the plurality of pieces of vital data”; “a step of setting a visual mode of the information indicating the hospitalization time of the patient, in accordance with a comparison between the hospitalization time and a threshold set for the hospitalization time”; and “a step of setting a visual mode of the information indicating the first vital data, in accordance with a comparison between a value of the first vital data and the changed first threshold”, these additional elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, because:
- Applicant’s disclosure supports this assertion. For example, Applicant discloses that: (1) the device may be a CO2 sensor or a pacemaker (see Applicant’s original specification, as filed on February 26, 2024, paragraph [0032]); (2) the server 2 can include an in-hospital information database (see Applicant’s original specification, as filed on February 26, 2024, paragraph [0017]); (3) the memory may include a read only memory (ROM) in which various programs are stored, and a random access memory (RAM) having a plurality of work areas in which various programs executed by the one or more processors are stored (see Applicant’s original specification, as filed on February 26, 2024, paragraph [0020]); (4) each processor may include at least one of, […] a central processing unit (CPU), micro processing unit (MPU), and a graphics processing unit (GPU). These passages in Applicant’s specification indicate that the system, device, and other computer components and functions are conventional in nature (i.e., well-understood, routine, and conventional computer devices and software), such as storing programs on a ROM/RAM and a generic central processing unit (CPU). Therefore, the Examiner submits that these devices and computer components represent well-understood, routine, and conventional computer devices which are known in the medical industry.
- The Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer or other machinery as tools for performing their typical functionality in conjunction with performing the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and analysis of these limitations under Step 2A, Prong Two above).
Therefore, these limitations are also deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional under Step 2B for similar reasons since they are claimed in a generic manner.
- Regarding the steps and features directed to: “cause a display to” and “a step of causing the display to” - The following represents examples that courts have identified to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activities (e.g., see MPEP § 2106.05(d)):
- Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly the limitations directed to: “cause a display to” and “a step of causing the display to”, are similarly deemed to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the medical field, because they also represent mere collection and transmission of data over a network (i.e., causing a display to (i) display the vital sign data, the information indicating the content and the time of the treatment; and (ii) the information indicating the hospitalization time of the patient, are each the equivalent of receiving and transmitting data to a display device over a network).
Therefore, the additional elements described in claims 1-6, 15, 17, and 19 are deemed to be additional elements which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements of claims 1-6, 15, 17, and 19 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functionality of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-6, 15, 17, and 19 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Additionally, dependent claims 7-11 (which individually depend on claim 1 due to their respective chains of dependency), do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner notes that dependent claims 7-11 do not include any additional elements beyond those identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional components as described above in the subject matter eligibility rejections of independent claims 1, 15, 17, and 19. Dependent claims 7-11 merely add limitations that further narrow the abstract idea described in independent claims 1, 15, 17, and 19. Therefore, claims 1-11, 15, 17, and 19 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 1-4, 7, 15, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by:
- Noro et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0189282).
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 19,
- Noro et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0189282) discloses:
- a patient information processing method executed by one or more processors (Noro, paragraphs [0035] and [0046]; Paragraph [0035] discloses a medical information processing method. Paragraph [0046] discloses that the apparatus and method are executed by processing circuitry, which is realized by using a processor.), the patient information processing method comprising (as described in claim 1):
- a patient information processing device (Noro, paragraph [0040]; Paragraph [0040] discloses a computer device, such as a workstation, a personal computer, a tablet terminal device, or the like.) comprising: one or more processors (Noro, paragraph [0046]; Paragraph [0046] discloses that the apparatus and method are executed by processing circuitry, which is realized by using a processor.); and one or more memories configured to store a computer-readable instruction, wherein , in a case where the computer-readable instruction is executed by the one or more processors (Noro, paragraph [0138]; Paragraph [0138] discloses that the programs may be provided as being recorded on a computer-readable storage medium such as a Compact Disk Read-Only Memory (CD-ROM), a Flexible Disk (FD), a Compact Disk Recordable (CD-R), a Digital Versatile Disk (DVD), or the like, in a file in such a format that is either installable or executable for the devices (i.e., examples of non-transitory computer readable storage media that store a program comprising instructions).), the patient information processing device is configured to (as described in claim 17):
- a patient information processing system (Noro, paragraph [0042]; Paragraph [0042] discloses a medical information processing apparatus 100 and the systems.) comprising: a server (Noro, paragraph [0136]; Paragraph [0136] discloses that the medical information processing apparatus includes an obtaining unit (i.e., a server).); and a display terminal communicably connected to the server (Noro, paragraphs [0034] and [0136]; Paragraph [0034] discloses that the medical information processing apparatus includes a display controlling unit (i.e., a display terminal). Paragraph [0136] discloses that the display controlling unit is in communication with the obtaining unit (i.e., the display terminal is connected to the server).), wherein the patient information processing system is configured to (as described in claim 19):
- a step of obtaining a plurality of pieces of vital data of a patient (as described in claims 1, 17, and 19) (Noro, paragraph [0049]; Paragraph [0049] discloses that vital sign data is diagnosis and treatment data related to vital signs and obtained from the radiation department system (i.e., obtaining a plurality of pieces of vital data of a patient).);
- a step of obtaining information indicating a content and a time of a treatment performed on the patient (as described in claims 1, 17, and 19) (Noro, paragraph [0054]; Paragraph [0055] discloses the display controlling function 151 receives, from the operator, an operation to designate a point in time or a time period within the display period displayed in the timeline display region 11 and further arranges detailed information indicating the specifics of the diagnosis and treatment data (i.e., obtaining information indicating a time of a treatment performed on the patient).) to be displayed in the diagnosis and treatment data display region 12, with respect to one or more events of diagnosis and treatment actions performed either at the designated point in time or during the designated time period (i.e., obtaining information indicating a time of the treatment performed on the patient).); and
- a step of causing a display to display information indicating at least one of the plurality of pieces of vital data or an index associated with the plurality of pieces of vital data (Noro, paragraph [0056]; Paragraph [0056] discloses that the display controlling function 151 refers to the vital sign data included in the integrated diagnosis and treatment DB and displays, in the diagnosis and treatment data display region 12, a graph 15 indicating changes in measured values related to vital signs taken either at the designated point in time or during the designated time period (i.e., displaying information indicating at least one of the plurality of pieces of vital data).), and to display information indicating the content and the time of the treatment (as described in claims 1, 17, and 19) (Noro, paragraphs [0054] and [0055]; Paragraph [0054] discloses that the display controlling function 151 displays icons corresponding to specifics of the events of the diagnosis and treatment actions performed on the subject during the display period (i.e., displaying information indicating the content of the treatment), in such a manner that at least one icon is arranged for each of the tally units obtained by dividing the display period into sections arranged in a time series (i.e., displaying information indicating the time of the treatment). Paragraph [0055] discloses that the displaying controlling unit displays the detailed information indicating the specifics of the obtained diagnosis and treatment data in the diagnosis and treatment data display region 12 (i.e., displaying information indicating the content and time of the treatment).).
Regarding claim 2,
- Noro discloses the limitations of claim 1 (which claim 2 depends on), as described above.
- Noro discloses a method, further comprising:
- a step of setting a visual mode of the information indicating the content and the time of the treatment, in accordance with the content and/or the time of the treatment (Noro, paragraph [0058]; Paragraph [0058] discloses that the display controlling function 151is configured to display icons expressing the specifics of the events (i.e., a setting of a visual mode) and being arranged in the corresponding sections of the panel 16, on the basis of the diagnosis and treatment data related to the events of the diagnosis and treatment actions performed either at the designated point in time or during the designated time period (i.e., the visual mode shows information indicating the content and time of the treatment). For example, paragraph [0058] further discloses that the display controlling function 151 displays the events with respect to either the entire time period containing the diagnosis and treatment data or a time period from the current date/time up to two weeks earlier (i.e., examples of different settings for the visual mode).).
Regarding claim 3,
- Noro discloses the limitations of claim 1 (which claim 3 depends on), as described above.
- Noro discloses a method, further comprising:
- step of setting a visual mode of the information indicating the plurality of pieces of vital data, in accordance with a comparison between a value of each of the plurality of pieces of vital data and a threshold set for each of the plurality of pieces of vital data (Noro, paragraph [0106] and FIG. 23; Paragraph [0106] discloses that as illustrated in FIG. 23, by receiving an operation performed by the operator on any of radio buttons 18 corresponding to the colors and being displayed together with the panel 16, the calculating function 155 may display a color only in such sections to which the selected color is assigned. Alternatively, by receiving an operation performed by the operator on a slide bar 19 displayed together with the panel 16, the calculating function 155 may display a color only in such sections of which the tallied value is equal to or larger than a threshold value (i.e., a setting of the visual mode that indicates the plurality of vital data in comparison with a threshold value set for each of the plurality of vital data). With any of these arrangements, it is possible to display the information while placing an emphasis on a specific piece of information.).
Regarding claim 4,
- Noro discloses the limitations of claim 1 (which claim 4 depends on), as described above.
- Noro discloses a method, further comprising:
- a step of obtaining information indicating a hospitalization time of the patient; and a step of causing the display to further display the information indicating the hospitalization time of the patient (Noro, paragraphs [0120] and [0121] and FIG. 27; Paragraph [0120] and [0121] discloses that as FIG. 27 illustrates, critical event data is generated by the operator. Paragraph [0121] further discloses that as the specifics of the events, pieces of information indicating specifics of the critical events (e.g., hospitalization (i.e., obtaining information indicating a hospitalization of the patient), a sudden change in the subject's condition, stabilization of the subject's condition) are set. FIG. 27 illustrates that the display may show a date and time for the specific event of a hospitalization, along with the patient’s ID (i.e., obtaining and displaying the information indicating a hospitalization time of the patient).).
Regarding claim 7,
- Noro discloses the limitations of claim 1 (which claim 7 depends on), as described above.
- Noro discloses a method, further comprising:
- a step of calculating a vital score indicating a condition of the patient, at least based on the plurality of pieces of vital data (Noro, paragraphs [0071] and [0072]; Paragraph [0071] discloses that the tallying function 154 tallies, as the index value, abnormality values (i.e., calculating a vital score) each indicating an abnormality in either the diagnosis and treatment actions or the state of the subject (i.e., the vital score indicates a condition of the patient). In this situation, the abnormality values are numerical values each of which indicates a certain abnormality related to either the diagnosis and treatment actions or the state of the subject (i.e., the abnormality values are interpreted to be the equivalent of the vital score, because they are numerical values that indicate the state of the subject patient) and which are defined in correspondence with the types of events of the diagnosis and treatment actions. For example, with respect to the vital signs, the tallying function 154 tallies the number of times when a measured value fell outside a reference range as an abnormality value (i.e., the vital score is at least based on the plurality of pieces of vital data).), wherein the index associated with the plurality of pieces of vital data is the vital score (Noro, paragraph [0071]; Paragraph [0071] discloses that the tallies are explained with respect to vital signs (i.e., the index values from the tallies are associated with the plurality of pieces of vital data where the vital score is derived from).).
Regarding claim 15,
- Noro discloses:
- a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program comprising instructions which, when executed by a computer (Noro, paragraph [0138]; Paragraph [0138] discloses that the programs may be provided as being recorded on a computer-readable storage medium such as a Compact Disk Read-Only Memory (CD-ROM), a Flexible Disk (FD), a Compact Disk Recordable (CD-R), a Digital Versatile Disk (DVD), or the like, in a file in such a format that is either installable or executable for the devices (i.e., examples of non-transitory computer readable storage media that store a program comprising instructions).), cause the computer to execute the patient information processing method according to claim 1 (The mapping of the paragraphs in Noro relied upon for disclosing the limitations of claim 1 are also relied upon for this claim and are incorporated herein by reference.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
- Noro et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0189282), in view of:
- Ruano et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0098186).
Regarding claim 5,
- Noro discloses the limitations of claim 4 (which claim 5 depends on), as described above in the Claim Rejections - § 102 Section above.
- Noro does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of systems and methods for monitoring treatments of a patient, Ruano et al. (Pub. No. US 2011/0098186) teaches a method, wherein:
- a step of setting a visual mode of the information indicating the hospitalization time of the patient, in accordance with a comparison between the hospitalization time and a threshold set for the hospitalization time (Ruano, paragraphs [0056] and [0080], and Table 5; Paragraph [0080] teaches that Table 5 shows comparisons of lengths of patient hospitalization with Drug Metabolism Reserve Physiotype indices (i.e., setting a visual mode of the information indicating a hospitalization time of the patient). Paragraph [0080] also teaches that individuals with an metabolic alteration index of 1.5 or less had an average length of hospitalization of 6.1 days, compared to 7.0 days for patients with an index greater than 1.5 (p=0.14). (i.e., the information indicates a comparison between the hospitalization time and a threshold set for the hospitalization time). Paragraph [0056] teaches that this feature is beneficial for customizing a drug regimen for the patient to reduce a length of hospitalization or reduce a risk of re-hospitalization.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of methods for monitoring treatments of a patient at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical information processing method taught by Noro, to incorporate a step and feature directed to setting a visual mode of the information to indicate a comparison between the hospitalization of the patient and a threshold set for the hospitalization time, as taught by Ruano, in order to customize a drug regimen for the patient to reduce a length of hospitalization or reduce a risk of re-hospitalization. See Ruano, paragraph [0056]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
- Noro et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0189282), in view of:
- Mazar et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/03025393).
Regarding claim 6,
- Noro discloses the limitations of claim 3 (which claim 6 depends on), as described above in the Claim Rejections - § 102 Section above.
- Noro further discloses a method, wherein:
- the plurality of pieces of vital data includes first vital data related to a specific treatment (Noro, paragraph [0072]; Paragraph [0072] discloses that the tallying function 154 tallies the number of times when a measured value fell outside the reference range, by referring to the vital sign data included in the integrated diagnosis and treatment DB (i.e., the vital data includes first vital data related to a specific treatment) and the reference range table stored in the storage 120.).
…
…
- Noro does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of systems and methods for monitoring patient data, Mazar et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0302539) teaches a method, wherein the step of setting a visual mode of information indicating the firs vital data includes:
- a step of changing a first threshold set for the first vital data, in a case
where the specific treatment is performed on the patient (Mazar, paragraphs [0045]; Paragraph [0045] teaches the caregiver can use the bedside monitor 108 to log a therapy activity for the patient and make notes about physical therapy progress for the patient (i.e., a case where a specific treatment is performed on the patient). Paragraph [0045] teaches the caregiver 110 can use the bedside monitor 108 to adjust ranges for what is considered a “normal” or “safe” range for one or more vital signs for the patient 104 (i.e., changing a first threshold set for the first vital data, in a case where the specific treatment is performed).); and
- a step of setting a visual mode of the information indicating the first vital data, in accordance with a comparison between a value of the first vital data and the changed first threshold (Mazar, paragraph [0141]; Paragraph [0141] teaches the user interface 385 can also include indications of recorded vital sign information or other information that is outside of a specified normal range for the patient (i.e., a visual mode of the information indicating the first vital data with a comparison between a value of the first vital data and the changed vital threshold). This can include vital signs that deviate enough from indicate normal ranges to rise to the level of an alarm state as well as slight deviations from a normal level (i.e., a visual mode with a comparison between a value of the first vital data and the changed vital threshold). Paragraph [0141] teaches that this feature is beneficial for helping a caregiver to quickly identify problems for the patient to better determine a course of care for the patient.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of methods for monitoring patient data at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical information processing method taught by Noro, to incorporate steps and features directed to (i) changing a first threshold set for the first vital data, in a case where the specific treatment is performed, and (ii) setting a visual mode of the information indicating the first vital data with a comparison between a value of the first vital data and the changed vital threshold, as taught by Mazar, in order to help a caregiver to quickly identify problems for the patient to better determine a course of care for the patient. See Mazar, paragraph [0141]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
- Noro et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0189282), in view of:
- Maeta (Pub. No. US 2023/0119139); and
- Mazar et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/03025393).
Regarding claim 8,
- Noro discloses the limitations of claim 8 (which claim 7 depends on), as described above in the Claim Rejections - § 102 Section above.
- Noro further discloses a method, wherein the step of calculating a vital score includes:
- a step of calculating a sub score of each of the plurality of pieces of vital data, in accordance with a comparison between each of the pieces of plurality of vital data and a reference range set for each of the plurality of pieces of vital data (Noro, paragraph [0072]; Paragraph [0072] discloses that the tallying function 154 tallies the number of times when a measured value fell outside the reference range, by referring to the vital sign data included in the integrated diagnosis and treatment DB (i.e., the vital data includes first vital data related to a specific treatment) and the reference range table stored in the storage 120.).
…
…
…
- Noro does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of systems and methods for monitoring patient data, Maeta (Pub. No. US 2023/0119139) teaches a method, wherein the step of calculating a vital score includes:
- a step of calculating the vital score, based on each calculated sub score,
the plurality of pieces of vital data include first vital data related to a specific treatment (Maeta, paragraphs [0023] and [0270]; Paragraph [0023] teaches the EWS [early warning score] is a technique for calculating a score according to a measurement result or an evaluation result of vital signs (i.e., calculating sub scores for the plurality of pieces of vital data included in the first vital data), based on the measurement of the subject's six major signs: respiratory rate (rpm), oxygen saturation (SpO2) (%), body temperature (° C.), blood pressure (mmHg), heart rate (bpm), and consciousness level (AVPU response: A: alert (normal), V: voice (responsive to voice), P: pain (responsive to pain), U: unresponsive), and determining the degree of disease by the total score of the score (refer, e.g., non-patent literature 1) (i.e., the step of calculating the vital score is based on each calculated sub score). Paragraph [0270] teaches that this feature is beneficial for determining whether vital sign data is abnormal with respect to the total score of score valuation information of all types of vital signs.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of methods for monitoring patient data at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical information processing method taught by Noro, to incorporate a step and feature directed to calculating a vital score based on calculated sub scores for a plurality of pieces of vital data related to a specific treatment, as taught by Maeta, in order to determine whether vital sign data is abnormal with respect to the total score of score valuation information of all types of vital signs. See Maeta, paragraph [0270]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
- The combination of: Noro, as modified in view of Maeta, does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of systems and methods for monitoring patient data, monitoring patient data, Mazar et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0302539) teaches a method, wherein the step of calculating a first sub score of the first vital data includes:
- the step of calculating a first sub score of the first vital data includes:
- a step of changing a first reference range set for the first vital data, in a case where the specific treatment is performed on the patient (Mazar, paragraphs [0045]; Paragraph [0045] teaches the caregiver can use the bedside monitor 108 to log a therapy activity for the patient and make notes about physical therapy progress for the patient (i.e., a case where a specific treatment is performed on the patient). Paragraph [0045] teaches the caregiver 110 can use the bedside monitor 108 to adjust ranges for what is considered a “normal” or “safe” range for one or more vital signs for the patient 104 (i.e., changing a first reference range set for the first vital data, in a case where the specific treatment is performed on the patient).); and
- a step of calculating the first sub score, in accordance with a comparison between a value of the first vital data and the changed first reference range (Mazar, paragraph [0141]; Paragraph [0141] teaches the user interface 385 can also include indications of recorded vital sign information or other information that is outside of a specified normal range for the patient (i.e., a comparison between a value of the first vital data and the changed vital threshold). This can include vital signs that deviate enough from indicate normal ranges to rise to the level of an alarm state as well as slight deviations from a normal level (i.e., a comparison between a value of the first vital data and the changed vital threshold). Paragraph [0141] teaches that these features are beneficial for helping a caregiver to quickly identify problems for the patient to better determine a course of care for the patient.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of methods for monitoring patient data at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the medical information processing method taught by Noro, as modified in view of Maeta, to incorporate steps and features directed to (i) changing a first reference range set for the first vital data, in a case where the specific treatment is performed, and (ii) calculating a first sub score in accordance with a comparison between a value of the first vital data and the changed first reference range, as taught by Mazar, in order to help a caregiver to quickly identify problems for the patient to better determine a course of care for the patient. See Mazar, paragraph [0141]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Claim 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
- Noro et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0189282), in view of:
- Fujisawa et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0076824); and
- Maeta (Pub. No. US 2023/0119139).
Regarding claim 9,
- Noro discloses the limitations of claim 9 (which claim 7 depends on), as described above in the Claim Rejections - § 102 Section above.
- Noro further discloses a method, wherein the step of calculating a vital score includes:
- a step of calculating a sub score of each of the plurality of pieces of vital data, based on a comparison between each of the plurality of pieces of vital data and a reference range set for each of the plurality of pieces of vital data (Noro, paragraph [0072]; Paragraph [0072] discloses that the tallying function 154 tallies the number of times when a measured value fell outside the reference range, by referring to the vital sign data included in the integrated diagnosis and treatment DB and the reference range table stored in the storage 120 (i.e., the sub score for the plurality of pieces of vital data is based on a comparison between each of the plurality of pieces of vital data and a reference range set for each of the plurality of pieces of vital data).).
…
…
- Noro does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of systems and methods for monitoring and processing patient data, Fujisawa et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0076824) teaches a method, wherein the step of calculating a vital score includes:
- a step of calculating a sub score related to a treatment performed on the patient, based on information related to the treatment (Fujisawa, paragraphs [0022] and [0074]; Paragraph [0074] teaches that the disease QI is an index value for measuring a treatment effect of how much a disease of each patient in the population has been treated when the patient in the population is treated according to a certain treatment method (i.e., calculating a sub score related to a treatment performed on the patient). For example, when the disease of the patient is cancer, the disease QI may be a 5-year survival rate, the number of days of postoperative hospital stay, a recurrence rate, cancer survival rate, a percentage of breast conserving surgery (i.e., the sub score is based on information related to the treatment), and the like. Paragraph [0022] teaches that this feature is beneficial for selecting a treatment method that is suitable for an intention of a patient or his or her family.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of methods for monitoring and processing patient data at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the medical information processing method taught by Noro, to incorporate a step and feature directed to calculating a sub score related to a treatment performed on the patient that is based on information related to the treatment, as taught by Fujisawa, in order to select a treatment method that is suitable for an intention of a patient or his or her family. See Fujisawa, paragraph [0022]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
- Further, the combination of Noro, as modified in view of Fujisawa, does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of systems and methods for monitoring patient data, Maeta (Pub. No. US 2023/0119139) teaches a method, wherein the step of calculating a vital score includes:
- a step of calculating the vital score, at least based on the sub score of each
of the plurality of pieces of vital data and the sub score related to the treatment (Maeta, paragraphs [0023] and [0270]; Paragraph [0023] teaches the EWS [early warning score] is a technique for calculating a score according to a measurement result or an evaluation result of vital signs (i.e., calculating sub scores for each of the plurality of pieces of vital data), based on the measurement of the subject's six major signs: respiratory rate (rpm), oxygen saturation (SpO2) (%), body temperature (° C.), blood pressure (mmHg), heart rate (bpm), and consciousness level (AVPU response: A: alert (normal), V: voice (responsive to voice), P: pain (responsive to pain), U: unresponsive), and determining the degree of disease by the total score of the score (refer, e.g., non-patent literature 1) (i.e., the step of calculating the vital score is based on each calculated sub score). Paragraph [0104] teaches that the predetermined scoring condition includes determining a state in which a subject takes drugs that act on blood pressure or pulse or has been given a prescription or treatment that acts on changes in other vital signs (i.e., the step of calculating the vital score is based on calculating a sub score related to the treatment of the patient). Paragraph [0270] teaches that this feature is beneficial for determining whether vital sign data is abnormal with respect to the total score of score valuation information of all types of vital signs.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of methods for monitoring patient data at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the medical information processing method taught by Noro, as modified in view of Fujisawa, to incorporate a step and feature directed to calculating a vital score based on calculated sub scores for a plurality of pieces of vital data and a sub score related to the specific treatment of the patient, as taught by Maeta, in order to determine whether vital sign data is abnormal with respect to the total score of score valuation information of all types of vital signs. See Maeta, paragraph [0270]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Regarding claim 10,
- The combination of: Noro, as modified in view of: Fujisawa and Maeta, teaches the limitations of claim 9 (which claim 10 depends on), as described above.
- Fujisawa further teaches a method, wherein the step of calculating a vital score includes:
- a step of calculating a sub score related to the hospitalization time, based on information indicating a hospitalization time of the patient (Fujisawa, paragraph [0073]; Paragraph [0073] teaches that the hospital PI is an index value (i.e., the step of calculating a vital score includes calculating a sub score) regarding a temporal or economic cost spent by each patient in the population, such as the number of hospitalization days (i.e., the sub score is related to information including a hospitalization time of the patient) or a treatment cost.); and
- a step of calculating the vital score, based on a sub score of each of the plurality of pieces of vital data (Fujisawa, paragraph [0067]; Paragraph [0067] teaches that FIG. 7 is a diagram illustrating an example attribute distribution [to a quantitative value of the target patient (i.e., the vital score)]. Paragraph [0067] further teaches that in area (b), for example, the quantitative value of a vital sign at a current point in time is plotted (i.e., the step of calculating the vital score is based on a sub score of each of the plurality of pieces of vital data).), a sub score related to the treatment (Fujisawa, paragraph [0074]; Paragraph [0074] teaches that the disease QI is an index value (i.e., the step of calculating a vital score includes calculating a sub score) for measuring a treatment effect of how much a disease of each patient in the population has been treated when the patient in the population is treated according to a certain treatment method (i.e., the sub score is related to the treatment of the patient).), and a sub score related to the hospitalization time (Fujisawa, paragraph [0073]; Paragraph [0073] teaches that the hospital PI is an index value (i.e., the step of calculating a vital score includes calculating a sub score) regarding a temporal or economic cost spent by each patient in the population, such as the number of hospitalization days (i.e., the sub score is related to information including a hospitalization time of the patient) or a treatment cost.).
The motivations and rationales for modifying the medical information processing method taught by Noro, in view of: Fujisawa and Maeta, described in the analysis of the obviousness rejection of claim 9 similarly apply to this obviousness rejection, and are incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
- Noro et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0189282), in view of:
- Gross et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0117813).
Regarding claim 11,
- Noro discloses the limitations of claim 1 (which claim 11 depends on), as described above in the Claim Rejections - § 102 Section above.
- Noro does not explicitly teach, however, in analogous art of systems and methods for monitoring vital signs of a patient, Gross et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0117813) teaches a method, wherein:
- the information indicating the content and the time of the treatment performed on the patient includes information indicating a type and a connection time of a medical device connected to the patient (Gross, paragraphs [0154], [0155], and [0208]; Paragraph [0154] teaches that the bridge is able to report and determine the following: group and sort devices by manufacture, device model, revisions information and display devices serial numbers, unique device ID, asset number, revisions, etc. (i.e., information indicating a type of medical device connected to the patient). Paragraph [0155] also teaches that the bridge is able to report and determine the last time a specific unit connected to the EMR capture system (i.e., information indicating the connection time of a medical device connected to the patient). Paragraph [0208] teaches that this feature is beneficial for managing and storing multiple record readings for multiple patients and presenting the information to an operator in an understandable and consistent manner.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of methods for monitoring vital signs of a patient at the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the medical information processing method taught by Noro, to incorporate a step and feature directed to indicting a type and a connection time of a medical device connected to the patient, as taught by Gross, in order to (i) manage and store multiple record readings for multiple patients and (ii) present the information to an operator in an understandable and consistent manner. See Gross, paragraph [0208]; see also MPEP § 2143 G.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Akogyeram II whose telephone number is (571) 272-0464. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, between 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Jason Dunham can be reached at (571) 272-8109. 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.
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/processlfi!elefslguidance/index.isp. An EFS-Web Quick-Start
Guide is available at: http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portallefslquick-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:
United States Patent and Trademark Office:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-1450
/N.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3686
/JONATHON A. SZUMNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686