DETAILED ACTION
Status
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 10 March 2026. Claims 2-3, 5 and 7-8 have been cancelled currently or previously, claims 1, 4, 6, and 11-13 have been amended, and no new claims have been added. Therefore, claims 1, 4, 6, and 9-13 are pending and presented for examination.
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 .
Response to Amendment
A summary of the Examiner’s Response to Applicant’s amendment:
Applicant’s amendment does not overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101; therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection(s) while updating phrasing in keeping with current examination guidelines.
Applicant’s amendment does not overcome the prior art rejection(s) under 35 USC §§ 102 or 103; therefore, the Examiner maintains the rejection(s) as below.
Applicant’s arguments are found to be not persuasive; please see the Response to Arguments below.
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner notes that recitations to Applicant's specification, as below, are in reference to the Pre-Grant Publication of Applicant’s specification. Apparently, the searchable text version submitted by Applicant is not broken down by page or paragraphs – at least the first 12 pages appear to all show as “page 1”; therefore, it is apparently impractical, or at least highly cumbersome, to cite to the submitted specification.
The Examiner notes that “medical events”, per the light of the specification, “represent medical actions taken for the patient in the past, medical-related events related to the patient, and the like. The medical events denote, for example, surgery, administration of a drug, performing radiation treatment, and the like” (see Applicant ¶ 0047 as published)
The Examiner notes that an “item” is, per the light of the specification, essentially a symptom – from a medical biological view, e.g., “a pain in the body, nausea, vomiting, numbness in the body, fatigue, tiredness, and/or the like”, or from a psychological view, e.g. “feeling depressed, interference with daily life, and/or the like…. related to the patient's life such as his/her family structure, work, financial situation, hobbies, and/or the like” (see Applicant ¶ 0049 as published).
The Examiner notes that “at least one small event” is now recited, where (since this may be confusing at first impression) Applicant’s description indicates that “small events denote events that occur along with implementation of a medical event. In other words, by implementing a plurality of small events, the implementation of the medical event is achieved” (see Applicant ¶ 0050 as published).
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Receive”, at line 3, is capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1, 4, 6, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites “output a specified result”; however, there is no request for a result, nor any determination of a result. The claim has a memory storing information corresponding to a plurality of reference purposes, a medical event, an item, a reference period, and a weight of relationship, then an input selecting one of the reference purposes, and a series of steps that “specify” the information that is stored. This would, possibly or apparently, pick or select specific (i.e., specified) information from the memory storage, but there is no indication of what any result would be such that it could be returned. The medical event and item have, per the claim, “already been implemented”, and the period and weight are apparently just be called up from the memory storage. So, there is no indication regarding what result could be returned. The claims continue by classifying “the item” according to a biological viewpoint (e.g., a symptom) as “a first item” and a feeling or impact (e.g., felt depressed, couldn’t work as before, etc.) as “a second item”, outputs a time (i.e., “a reference period”) for each of the first and second items, and arranges them chronologically. But there still is no request for any of the outputs.
Independent claim 12 is analyzed similarly since it also merely says to “transmit a specified result” (to the display), but there again is no request or indication of what the result may possibly be.
Independent claim 13 is also analyzed similarly since it recites “outputting a specified result”, without (again) any request or indication of what the result may be. HOWEVER, claim 13 then further recites that the outputting of a specified result is “specified at the specifying step”. There are now five “specifying step[s]” antecedent to the indication of the result being “specified at the specifying step”, so it is indefinite which specifying step is being referenced for the result that is “specified at the specifying step”.
Based on claim 13, the Examiner now wonders further whether claims 1, 12, and 13 should be interpreted as only one of the specifying steps actually being required, and the other specifying steps are optional or alternative, or whether all of the specifying steps are required.
For examination purposes, the independent claims are being interpreted as merely providing a chronological ordered timeline of events and symptoms or results.
Claims 4, 6, and 9-11 depend from claim 1, but do not resolve the above issues and inherit the deficiencies of the parent claim(s); therefore claims 4, 6, and 9-11 are also indefinite.
Claims 12 ands 13, as indicated above, are analyzed similarly to claim 1 and are therefore indefinite on the same bases as claim 1, with claim 13 being further indefinite based on the multiple possibilities of a “specifying step” (as indicated above).
Although prior art is being placed below, the Examiner notes that this is apparently complete guessing since it is exceedingly unclear what the claims are actually doing – it appears that the claims merely output any data that may be in the memory as related (at any level, apparently including a weight of zero) to the reference purpose input, the output apparently being in any order without regard to any weighting or emphasis.
Claim 9 recites the limitation of selecting one of "the first and the second events" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are first and second “items” (e.g., symptoms or feelings/impacts) at parent claim 1, but not first and second “events” (e.g., a treatment).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Dependent claim 4 now recites to “automatically set a reference purpose on a basis of information obtained from the targeted patient, instead of receiving an input to select one reference purpose from the plurality of reference purposes”, where parent independent claim 1 requires “receive an input to select one reference purpose from the plurality of reference purposes”. The term “instead of” indicates that the requirement at claim 1 is being canceled. Therefore, claim 4 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 4, 6, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Please see the following Subject Matter Eligibility (“SME”) analysis:
For analysis under SME Step 1, the claims herein are directed to an apparatus (claims 1, 4, 6, and 9-11), system (claim 12), and method (claim 13), which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (SME Step 1=Yes).
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 1, independent claim 1 recites a medical information processing apparatus comprising a memory apparatus storing correspondence information in which, with respect to each of a plurality of reference purposes of consultation/treatment information about consultation/treatment process for a targeted patient subject to a consultation/treatment process, a medical event, an item, a reference period, and a weight expressing a degree of strength of a relationship between the reference purpose and the medical event are associated with one another; and processing circuitry configured to: receive an input to select one reference purpose from the plurality of reference purposes; specify, with reference to the correspondence information, a medical event associated with the selected reference purpose as a medical event relevant to the reference purpose; specify, on a basis of the consultation/treatment information about the targeted patient, a medical event that has already been implemented for the targeted patient and that is relevant to the reference purpose from among the specified medical event relevant to the reference purpose; specify, with reference to the correspondence information, an item associated with the medical event that has already been implemented for the targeted patient and that is relevant to the reference purpose as an item relevant to the medical event; specify, with reference to the correspondence information, a reference period associated with the item relevant to the medical event as a reference period of at least one small event related to the item relevant to the medical event; specify, with reference to the correspondence information, a weight associated with the medical event that has already been implemented for the targeted patient and that is relevant to the reference purpose as a weight for the selected reference purpose and for the medical event that has already been implemented for the targeted patient and that is relevant to the reference purpose; output a specified result; specify the item of the medical event and the reference period of the item, the item being classified into a first item classified from a medical biological viewpoint and a second item classified from a viewpoint other than the medical biological viewpoint; together with the specified result, output a reference period of the first item, a reference period of the second item, a weight on the first item, and a weight on the second item, in a distinguishable manner; and output a first event of the at least one small event indicating a state of the first item in each of different time spans during a time period corresponding to the reference period of the specified first item and a second event of the at least one small event indicating a state of the second item in each of different time spans during a time period corresponding to the reference period of the specified second item, so as to be arranged in a chronological order.
Independent claims 12 and 13 are analyzed in the same manner as claim 1 since claim 12 is directed to a medical information display system comprising a medical information processing apparatus and a medical information display apparatus, wherein the medical information processing apparatus includes processing circuitry configured perform the same operations as at claim 1, where the output is to transmit a specified result obtained to the medical information display apparatus, and the medical information display apparatus includes processing circuitry configured: to receive the specified result; and to exercise control so as to have the specified result displayed by a display apparatus, and claim 13 is directed to a medical information processing method being implemented by a medical information processing apparatus and comprising the same or similar activities as at claim 1.
The dependent claims (claims 4, 6, and 9-11) appear to be encompassed by the abstract idea of the independent claims since they merely indicate to automatically set a reference purpose and specify the item relevant to the purpose and period of time (claim 4), when the weight satisfies a predetermined condition, exclude the item relevant to the topic (claim 6), outputting details based on selection of an event (claim 9), specify a most recent consultation of a patient as a reference point (claim 10), and/or receive a topic, medical event, and reference period input and store them in correspondence (claim 11).
The underlined portions of the claims are an indication of elements additional to the abstract idea (to be considered below).
The claim elements may be summarized as the idea of chronologically listing items (such as symptoms like pain, nausea, depression, etc.) and their importance or weight related to events in regard to medical actions such as treatment; however, the Examiner notes that although this summary of the claims is provided, the analysis regarding subject matter eligibility considers the entirety of the claim elements, both individually and as a whole (or ordered combination). This idea is within the certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. … managing personal behavior or relationships between people such as social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) grouping(s) of subject matter based on the topic input, item specifying, and reference period(s) such that information can be retrieved from time-series information so that the retrieved information can be output as a result. The claims also appear to implicate mental processes in that the specifying indications appear to include the observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion of a user and the claims generally appear to be able to be performed in the human mind (including with the use of pen/pencil and paper). However, the end result of outputting events arranged in chronological order appears to more specifically fit with human activity, rather than just the mental processes of a human, i.e., the mental processes appear less influential or important as the directing of the claim to certain methods of organizing human activity since all the data is merely stored and then apparently looked up.
Therefore, the claims are found to be directed to an abstract idea.
For analysis under revised SME Step 2A, Prong 2, the above judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements do not impose a meaningful limit on the judicial exception when evaluated individually and as a combination. The additional elements are the use of a medical information processing apparatus comprising a memory apparatus and processing circuitry (at claim 1), a medical information display apparatus, where the medical information display apparatus includes processing circuitry configured: to receive the result; and to exercise control so as to have the specified result displayed by a display apparatus (at claim 12) and the method being implemented by a medical information processing apparatus (at claim 13). These additional elements do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field, effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (there is no medical disease or condition, much less a treatment or prophylaxis for one), implement the judicial exception with, or by using in conjunction 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 (there is no transformation/reduction of a physical article), and/or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generically linking use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claims appear to merely apply the judicial exception, include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements appear to merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
For analysis under SME Step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as indicated above, are merely “[a]dding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp.” that MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A) indicates to be insignificant activity
There is no indication the Examiner can find in the record regarding any specialized computer hardware or other “inventive” components, but rather, the claims merely indicate computer components which appear to be generic components and therefore do not satisfy an inventive concept that would constitute “significantly more” with respect to eligibility. The only apparent descriptions of the devices that may perform functions as claimed (e.g., Applicant ¶¶ 0024, 0029, 0033, and 0035) only indicate generic or general purpose computers “such as a server or a workstation” (at 0024 and 0033), “a smartphone, a tablet terminal, a wearable terminal, or a personal computer” (at 0029), and/or “a computer machine such as a personal computer or a tablet terminal” (at 0035).
The individual elements therefore do not appear to offer any significance beyond the application of the abstract idea itself, and there does not appear to be any additional benefit or significance indicated by the ordered combination, i.e., there does not appear to be any synergy or special import to the claim as a whole other than the application of the idea itself.
The dependent claims, as indicated above, appear encompassed by the abstract idea since they merely limit the idea itself; therefore the dependent claims do not add significantly more than the idea.
Therefore, SME Step 2B=No, any additional elements, whether taken individually or as an ordered whole in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, including analysis of the dependent claims.
Please see the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) guidance and instruction materials at https://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility, which includes the latest guidance, memoranda, and update(s) for further information.
NOTICE
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 6, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jain et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0180879, hereinafter Jain) .
Claim 1: Jain discloses a medical information processing apparatus comprising
a memory apparatus storing correspondence information in which, with respect to each of a plurality of reference purposes of consultation/treatment information about consultation/treatment process for a targeted patient subject to a consultation/treatment process, a medical event, an item, a reference period, and a weight expressing a degree of strength of a relationship between the reference purpose and the medical event are associated with one another (0056, “The EHR database 128 may include any computer-based source for patient data (e.g., EHR data) related to patients that visit an office of a physician associated with the EHR database 128. The EHR data may include information gathered during examination by physicians or staff at the office of the physician. The EHR data may include patient data that indicates at least one of a biological profile of the patient, a psychological profile of the patient, a social profile of the patient, physician notes related to the biological profile of the patient, physician notes related to the psychological profile of the patient, and physician notes related to the social profile of the patient. Additionally, the EHR data may include data related to clinical symptoms such as COPD of the patients; risk factors such as BMI and BP of the patients; extenuating factors such as pain of the patients; and psycho-social factors such as financial status of the patients. The EHR data may be combined with the sensor data to determine responses to questionnaires without the patient providing additional information”, 0145, “Multiple questions may be provided to the patient to determine whether the patient is experiencing limitations in performing various tasks. For example, whether the patient is experiencing limitations performing the basic tasks for daily survival; tasks for daily chores; tasks to join work force due to physical, mental, or emotional problems; tasks in the work the patient is doing due to physical, mental, or emotional problems; or tasks in any aspect of life due to physical, mental, or emotional problems. Each question may include an ADL weight value. For example, the patient is experiencing limitations performing the basic tasks for daily survival may be assigned an ADL weight of 0; tasks for daily chores may be assigned an ADL weight of 0.2; tasks to join work force due to physical, mental, or emotional problems may be assigned an ADL weight of 0.4; tasks in the work the patient is doing due to physical, mental, or emotional problems may be assigned an ADL weight of 0.65; or tasks in in any aspect of life due to physical, mental, or emotional problems may be assigned an ADL weight of 0.8. The ADL weight may be combined with PH coefficients determined based on GSRH questionnaires. For example, a GSRH score of excellent (top rank) may be assigned a PH coefficient of 1.0, very good (second rank) may be assigned a PH coefficient of 0.85, good (third rank) may be assigned a PH coefficient of 0.7, (second to the poor) may be assigned a PH coefficient of 0.3, and poor (worst rank) may be assigned a PH coefficient of 0. The activity limitation score in this example may be determined according to equation 1”, 0152, “For example, the patient may be compliant with dietary healthy choices, but may not be compliant with dietary harm avoidances and as such that category may be given greater weight using a VAS scale-based slider”; citation hereafter by number only);
processing circuitry configured to:
receive an input to select one reference purpose from the plurality of reference purposes (0034, “combining the different pieces of information may provide simple and efficient methods for determining a risk of under diagnosis of one or more chronic diseases within a practice of the physician”, 0056, “The EHR database 128 may include any computer-based source for patient data (e.g., EHR data) related to patients that visit an office of a physician associated with the EHR database 128. The EHR data may include information gathered during examination by physicians or staff at the office of the physician. The EHR data may include patient data that indicates at least one of a biological profile of the patient, a psychological profile of the patient, a social profile of the patient, physician notes related to the biological profile of the patient, physician notes related to the psychological profile of the patient, and physician notes related to the social profile of the patient. Additionally, the EHR data may include data related to clinical symptoms such as COPD of the patients; risk factors such as BMI and BP of the patients; extenuating factors such as pain of the patients; and psycho-social factors such as financial status of the patients. The EHR data may be combined with the sensor data to determine responses to questionnaires without the patient providing additional information”);
specify, with reference to the correspondence information, a medical event associated with the selected reference purpose as a medical event relevant to the reference purpose (0036, “prediction of a patient with at least one chronic disease experiencing an acute event (e.g., visiting an emergency room (ER) and/or hospitalization) in the near future … [or] in the intermediate future (e.g., in six to twelve months) may be performed”, 0145, “whether the patient is experiencing limitations performing the basic tasks for daily survival; tasks for daily chores; tasks to join work force due to physical, mental, or emotional problems; tasks in the work the patient is doing due to physical, mental, or emotional problems; or tasks in any aspect of life due to physical, mental, or emotional problems”);
specify, on a basis of the consultation/treatment information about the targeted patient, a medical event that has already been implemented for the targeted patient and that is relevant to the reference purpose from among the specified medical event relevant to the reference purpose (0087, previous episode or instance);
specify, with reference to the correspondence information, an item associated with the medical event that has already been implemented for the targeted patient and that is relevant to the reference purpose as an item relevant to the medical event (0087, “the patient has previously been diagnosed with a specific chronic disease for which an absolute scale of maximum discomfort or abnormality is known or the VAS scale from a previous episode is known. In such cases, a simple normalization may be applied to the VAS score with respect to the maximum score or the score during the previous instance. For example, the VAS scale for amnesia may be adjusted up/down to provide a normalized VAS score for the severity of amnesia. Additionally, the VAS scale for a new episode of disabling back pain may be scored with respect to the previous disabling episode”);
specify, with reference to the correspondence information, a reference period associated with the item relevant to the medical event as a reference period of at least one small event related to the item relevant to the medical event (0100, “ a smart phone application configured to record daily events (e.g., number of baths, eating, getting dressed, or other events) of the patient and if another person assisted the patient”);
specify, with reference to the correspondence information, a weight associated with the medical event that has already been implemented for the targeted patient and that is relevant to the reference purpose as a weight for the selected reference purpose and for the medical event that has already been implemented for the targeted patient and that is relevant to the reference purpose (0145 and Equation 1)
output a specified result (0035, “combining the different pieces of information may provide both valid and reliable results that are easily understood by physicians and other people who use the results. Likewise, the results may be measurable over time and may be measurable for different geographic locations and/or demographics of patients”);
specify the item of the medical event and the reference period of the item, the item being classified into a first item classified from a medical biological viewpoint and a second item classified from a viewpoint other than the medical biological viewpoint (0056, “The EHR database 128 may include any computer-based source for patient data (e.g., EHR data) related to patients that visit an office of a physician associated with the EHR database 128. The EHR data may include information gathered during examination by physicians or staff at the office of the physician. The EHR data may include patient data that indicates at least one of a biological profile of the patient, a psychological profile of the patient, a social profile of the patient, physician notes related to the biological profile of the patient, physician notes related to the psychological profile of the patient, and physician notes related to the social profile of the patient. Additionally, the EHR data may include data related to clinical symptoms such as COPD of the patients; risk factors such as BMI and BP of the patients; extenuating factors such as pain of the patients; and psycho-social factors such as financial status of the patients. The EHR data may be combined with the sensor data to determine responses to questionnaires without the patient providing additional information”);
together with the specified result, output a reference period of the first item, a reference period of the second item, a weight on the first item, and a weight on the second item, in a distinguishable manner (0056, “The EHR database 128 may include any computer-based source for patient data (e.g., EHR data) related to patients that visit an office of a physician associated with the EHR database 128. The EHR data may include information gathered during examination by physicians or staff at the office of the physician. The EHR data may include patient data that indicates at least one of a biological profile of the patient, a psychological profile of the patient, a social profile of the patient, physician notes related to the biological profile of the patient, physician notes related to the psychological profile of the patient, and physician notes related to the social profile of the patient. Additionally, the EHR data may include data related to clinical symptoms such as COPD of the patients; risk factors such as BMI and BP of the patients; extenuating factors such as pain of the patients; and psycho-social factors such as financial status of the patients. The EHR data may be combined with the sensor data to determine responses to questionnaires without the patient providing additional information”); and
output a first event of the at least one small event indicating a state of the first item in each of different time spans during a time period corresponding to the reference period of the specified first item and a second event of the at least one small event indicating a state of the second item in each of different time spans during a time period corresponding to the reference period of the specified second item, so as to be arranged in a chronological order (0310, “a day may include a series of states (e.g., nodes) of the patient. The states may correspond to the current day and the current health of the patient. For example, a node may correspond to the patient being healthy on a first day of the period of time. Additionally, the states of the patient may correspond to specific diseases, specific habits, and/or specific risks of the patient. Furthermore, the states of the patient may correspond to specific diseases, specific habits, and/or specific risks mapped to different weather types, seasons of the year, days of the week. For example, a third state of the patient may correspond to a heat stroke state of the patient on the first day in which an average temperature for the day is above eighty five degrees Fahrenheit”).
Claim 4: Jain discloses the medical information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: automatically set a reference purpose on a basis of information obtained from the targeted patient, instead of receiving an input to select one reference purpose from the plurality of reference purposes, and specify the item of the medical event relevant to the reference purpose and the reference period of the item, on a basis of the set reference purpose (0310, “a day may include a series of states (e.g., nodes) of the patient. The states may correspond to the current day and the current health of the patient. For example, a node may correspond to the patient being healthy on a first day of the period of time. Additionally, the states of the patient may correspond to specific diseases, specific habits, and/or specific risks of the patient. Furthermore, the states of the patient may correspond to specific diseases, specific habits, and/or specific risks mapped to different weather types, seasons of the year, days of the week. For example, a third state of the patient may correspond to a heat stroke state of the patient on the first day in which an average temperature for the day is above eighty five degrees Fahrenheit” – the purpose indicated by the state of the patient).
Claim 6: Jain discloses the medical information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein, when the weight does not satisfy a predetermined condition, the processing circuitry is further configured to exclude the item of the medical event relevant to the reference purpose from what is to be output (0095, “Adjusting the number of questionnaires, the number of questions that are included in the questionnaires, and/or the type of questionnaires that are provided to the patient, may allow more relevant data to be collected by the graded escalation module 110, as warranted, while collecting less data patient data when not warranted. For example, if a patient is relatively healthy and is not experiencing much pain, questions related to high amounts of pain may not be relevant and may be omitted from the collection of data” – where, since the reported results in Jain include questionnaires for collecting more information, when the weighted relevance is too low in Jain, the questionnaires are excluded).
Claim 9: Jain discloses the medical information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive an input to select an event from among two or more of the first and the second events, and the processing circuitry is configured to output details of the selected first or second event (0310, “a day may include a series of states (e.g., nodes) of the patient. The states may correspond to the current day and the current health of the patient. For example, a node may correspond to the patient being healthy on a first day of the period of time. Additionally, the states of the patient may correspond to specific diseases, specific habits, and/or specific risks of the patient. Furthermore, the states of the patient may correspond to specific diseases, specific habits, and/or specific risks mapped to different weather types, seasons of the year, days of the week. For example, a third state of the patient may correspond to a heat stroke state of the patient on the first day in which an average temperature for the day is above eighty five degrees Fahrenheit”).
Claim 10: Jain discloses the medical information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to specify a reference period of the item of the medical event corresponding to a most recent consultation date/time of the targeted patient (0151, “The lifestyle choice module 114 may be configured to determine whether the patient has experienced a change in lifestyle choice, for good or bad, in one or more categories over a period of time. In some embodiments, the period of time may include the period of time since the patient last had an in-person examination performed by the physician and/or care provider”).
Claim 11: Jain discloses the medical information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive, in addition to the input to select one reference purpose from the plurality of reference purposes, an input of the medical event relevant to the reference purpose, and a reference period of each of items belonging to the medical event, and store, into the memory apparatus, the received reference purpose, the medical event relevant to the reference purpose, and the reference period of each of the items belonging to the medical event, and the weight for the reference purpose and for the medical event so as to be associated with one another (0010, “receiving patient provided information input that provides a quantification of a present health of the patient”, 0051, “The chronic disease database 126 may include any computer-based source for collecting and/or storing chronic data related to patients that have one or more chronic diseases (e.g., arthritis, diabetes, epilepsy, heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, cancer, cardiovascular disease, or any other chronic disease)”, 0077, “The patient input may be stored in the memory 117 for further manipulation or later access by the electronic device”).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected on the same basis as claim 1 above since Jain discloses a medical information display system comprising a medical information processing apparatus and a medical information display apparatus, wherein the medical information processing apparatus includes processing circuitry configured to perform the activities (for claim 12), and further including and to transmit a specified result obtained to the medical information display apparatus, and the medical information display apparatus includes processing circuitry configured: to receive the specified result; and to exercise control so as to have the specified result displayed by a display apparatus (see Jain at least at 0289, 0372, related to the computer, processor, and instructions, see 0058, 0077, 0080 and 0376 related to the display and communicating information to a user) and a medical information processing method being implemented by a medical information processing apparatus (see Jain at 0204, 0246, 0260, 0268, 0278, 0289).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues the 101 rejection (Remarks at 12-14), first alleging with respect to “Step 2A, Prong One” that “Amended independent claims 1, 12, and 13 recite a medical information processing apparatus, a medical information display system, and a medical information processing method, respectively, in which correspondence information is stored such that, with respect to each of a plurality of reference purposes of consultation/treatment information about a consultation/treatment process for a targeted patient, a medical event, an item, a reference period, and a weight expressing a degree of strength of a relationship between the reference purpose and the medical event are associated with one another.” (Id. at 12). However, first, there is no display system at claim 1 or claim 13, and although one is recited at claim 12, it is apparently merely displaying whatever data is sent to it for display. Second, the argument merely relates to, or indicates, the data that is in the memory – data, even that which is stored in a memory apparatus, is not considered patentable.
Applicant then argues that “Claims 1 and 12 further recite processing circuitry configured to” perform the claim activities (Remarks at 12); however, using processing circuitry may be additional to Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis, but is analyzed at Step 2A, Prong 2.
Applicant indicates the claims indicate the apparatus, system, and method claims are “configured to receive an input selecting one reference purpose, and to specify, by referring to the stored correspondence information, a medical event relevant to the selected reference purpose, an item associated with that medical event, a reference period associated with the item, and a weight associated with the medical event and the reference purpose” (Id.). However, that is apparently merely just looking up information in the memory – which would apparently be, by definition, or under any basic understanding of eligibility analysis, an abstract idea.
Applicant alleges the “recited operations define a particular processing architecture” (Id. at 13); however, the claims actually only indicate a memory and processing circuitry – i.e., a general purpose computer. This does not appear to be, or require, any “particular … architecture”.
Applicant then indicates that “In contrast, conventional systems for browsing consultation/treatment information require multiple manual operations from a user” (Id.); however, at least then there may reasonably be a request for information – the instant claims only require an input, and apparently provide no indication of any analysis performed, nor any request for information.
Applicant then argues “the claimed subject matter provides a specific technical mechanism that enables automatic determination and retrieval of consultation/treatment information relevant to a selected reference purpose” (Id.). However, the claims have no determination steps or even a request to return a result – the claims merely have an input of a “reference purpose”. The Examiner notes that virtually, or literally, any general search engine – when someone enters, e.g., “cancer treatments” or “cancer treatment options” – would at least be reasonably interpreted as a request for information and return whatever information such search engine can find in relation to cancer treatments or cancer treatment options. Applicant’s claims do not even appear to do that – there is an input with no request or indication of what the basis may possibly be for returning any information, and if there is a result for some implied or assumed request, the claims would or could return literally ANY information related to the input.
The Examiner now wonders, based on the argument, whether the claims are to a browsing engine which (like, or the same as, a search engine) merely returns whatever information is in a memory.
Applicant then argues a practical application based on the allegation that the claims are based on “stored correspondence information and automated specification of multiple parameters used to retrieve and output patient information” (Id. at 13-14). However, the claims do not recite automated specification of anything – the specifying, assuming that is what Applicant is referring to, encompasses mere manual entry that designates (specifies) data from the memory that someone may want to look at. In fact, it does not even appear possible that the claims could automatically specify, for instance, “a medical event that has already been implemented for the targeted patient” – that information is not recited as being stored in the memory. The argument would require that this information “magically” appear somehow or be completely imagined or made up, i.e., not real data or information. As such, this argument cannot, apparently, be the basis of a practical application or significantly more since the claims do not require it – the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Applicant then argues the prior art rejections (Remarks at 14-17), first repeating claim 1 (Id. at 15), then alleging that “Jain fails to disclose or suggest at least the aforementioned features recited in amended independent claims 1, 12 and 13” (Id. at 16), then reviewing what Applicant recognizes or admits that Jain does (Id.), and the asserting that “Jain, however, does not disclose or suggest ‘a memory apparatus storing correspondence information in which, with respect to each of a plurality of reference purposes of consultation/treatment information about consultation/treatment process for a targeted patient subject to a consultation/treatment process, a medical event, an item, a reference period, and a weight expressing a degree of strength of a relationship between the reference purpose and the medical event are associated with one another.’” (Id., and again repeating the allegation, with an errant quote of “any” memory, at 16-17). However, the claims, even or especially at the quoted portion, are very broad – any event, item, reference period, and weight of relationship appear to meet the claim requirements – see the current rejection(s) above.
Applicant argues that “Jain requires the user himself/herself to specify the above elements according to his/her reference purpose when the user refers to the consultation/treatment information” (Id. at 17). However, that is well within the reasonable breadth of the claims, as explained above. The Examiner notes that claim 11 appears to belie Applicant’s argument since it indicates the various information is NOT automatically specified, but rather can be received as input.
Therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dullen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0198996) discusses “A pain measurement and diagnostic system (PMD) for bioanalytical analysis of pain matrix activity and the autonomic nervous system to diagnose and validate patient treatments, health status and outcomes” (at Abstract), including that “The Patient data component 54 provides data in the form of biologic data related to specifics about patient age, health, and medical history that may include but not be limited to biological, psychological, social, and environmental factors. This data may be provided or supplemented by the patient as part of their integration to treatment and additionally be pulled from electronic health records, notes, and other data acquired regarding a patient” (Dullen at 0105).
Lin, et al., "Temporal Event Tracing on Big Healthcare Data Analytics," 2014 IEEE International Congress on Big Data, Anchorage, AK, USA, 2014, pp. 281-287, doi: 10.1109/BigData.Congress.2014.48. downloaded 22 August 2025 from https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6906791, indicating “This study presents a comprehensive method for rapidly processing, storing, retrieving, and analyzing big healthcare data. Based on NoSQL (not only SQL), a patient-driven data architecture is suggested to enable the rapid storing and flexible expansion of data. Thus, the schema differences of various hospitals can be overcome, and the flexibility for field alterations and addition is ensured. The timeline mode can easily be used to generate a visual representation of patient records, providing physicians with a reference for patient consultation. The sharding-key is used for data partitioning to generate data on patients of various populations. Subsequently, data reformulation is conducted as a first step, producing additional temporal and spatial data, providing cloud computing methods based on query-MapReduce-shard, and enhancing the search performance of data mining. Target data can be rapidly searched and filtered, particularly when analyzing temporal events and interactive effects.” (at Abstract).
Pillapayam Narasimhachari et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20160092647) discloses that “According to first embodiment of the present invention, the abnormalities sub-module is configured to generate and store comprehensive information related to abnormalities of the individual user, which preferably relates to a chronological list of abnormalities, abnormality background, symptoms, consultation and treatment details, medical intervention details, test details, prescribed medicines and case history of individual abnormality” (at 0026, see also 0138 with a similar indication).
Mazer et al., A Pilot Study of the Chronology of Present Illness: Restructuring the HPI to Improve Physician Cognition and Communication. J Gen Intern Med. 2017 Feb;32(2):182-188. doi: 10.1007/s11606-016-3928-3. Epub 2016 Nov 28. PMID: 27896691; PMCID: PMC5264687. Downloaded 13 December 2025 from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5264687/, indicating “Patient history-taking is an essential clinical skill, with effects on diagnostic reasoning, patient–physician relationships, and more. We evaluated the impact of using a structured, timeline-based format, the Chronology of Present Illness (CPI), to guide the initial patient interaction” (Abstract at Background) and “Internal medicine residents used the CPI during a 2-week night-float rotation. For the first week, residents interviewed, documented, and presented patient histories according to their normal practices. They then attended a brief educational session describing the CPI, and were asked to use this method for new patient interviews, notes, and handoffs during the second week. Night and day teams evaluated the method using retrospective pre–post comparisons” (Abstract at Design).
Patricia Iyer, Writing Handbook for LNCs: How to Stand Out in a Crowded Field, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, Chapter 11, dated 1 March 2010, 624 pgs, ISBN-10:1452849722, ISBN-13:978-1452849720, downloaded 13 December 2025 from https://legalnursebusiness.com/members/wp-content/uploads/Tips-for-chronologies-and-more.pdf, indicating and/or instructing to “Organize the medical records before beginning the chronology. This will provide an opportunity to determine if any sections of the chart are missing. Use prepared index tabs to separate the portions of the medical record into their component parts. Keep the paper within each section in chronological order. For example, the oldest physician orders at the beginning of a hospital admission are placed on the top of the stack of orders.” (at p. 2). The Examiner notes including an Amazon.com page indicating the publication and availability of the book the chapter is from.
Musy et al., Trigger Tool–Based Automated Adverse Event Detection in Electronic Health Records: Systematic Review, J Med Internet Res 2018;20(5):e198, doi: 10.2196/jmir.9901, PMID: 29848467, PMCID: 6000482, downloaded from https://www.jmir.org/2018/5/e198/ on 29 July 2026, indicating that “Adverse events in health care entail substantial burdens to health care systems, institutions, and patients. Retrospective trigger tools are often manually applied to detect AEs, although automated approaches using electronic health records may offer real-time adverse event detection, allowing timely corrective interventions.” (at Abstract, Background).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT D GARTLAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5501. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/SCOTT D GARTLAND/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights