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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/27/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the present action filed on 04/27/2026.
Claims 1 and 7-9 have been amended.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 7-9 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.
Claims 1 and 8 state “acquire first evaluation information indicating an evaluation of the request for a medical support information item from the doctor device”. Based upon the language of this limitation, it is unclear whether it is the evaluation information or the medical support information item that is coming “from the doctor device”. For the sake of compact prosecution, the Examiner interprets the limitation as indicating that the request comes from the doctor device. Dependent claims 7 and 9 are further rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea).
Step 1 Analysis:
Independent Claims 1 and 8 are within the four statutory categories. Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (i.e. machine) and Claim 8 is directed toward a system (i.e. machine). Dependent Claims 7 and 9 are further directed to an apparatus and therefore also fall into one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Analysis- Prong One:
The substantially similar independent claims, taking Claim 1 as exemplary, recite the following:
A medical information processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to:
acquire a plurality of medical support information items regarding a patient and a generation-time information item from a patient device to be operated by the patient,
the generation-time information item indicating respective clock times at which the medical support information items are generated;
generate timeline data indicating a temporal flow of generation of the medical support information items regarding the patient by using a processor to arrange the medical support information items in accordance with the generation-time information item;
display the timeline data on an online-medical-care support screen for supporting online medical care that is performed via the patient device and a doctor device to be operated by a doctor, the online-medical-care support screen being displayed on a display of the patient device and a display of the doctor device;
generate a request for a medical support information item by using the processor;
display the request for a medical support information item at a position indicating a predetermined clock time in the timeline data on the online-medical-care support screen;
acquire first evaluation information indicating an evaluation of the request for a medical support information item from the doctor device;
update weighting of the request for a medical support information item based on the first evaluation information by using the processor,
the weighting including contribution degrees of the request for a medical support information item to the patient’s diagnosis;
and generate a request for a medical support information item necessary for the patient’s diagnosis on the basis of the updated weighting of the request by using the processor.
The series of limitations as shown in underline above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity because they recite managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teachings, and following rules or instructions- in this case, acquiring a plurality of data points, generating a timeline of data, displaying the timeline data, generate a request for medical support information, display the request, acquire evaluation information, update weighting of the request, and generate a request for medical support information needed for the patient’s diagnosis on the basis of the updated weighting), e.g., see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent Claims 7 and 9 recite other additional limitations directed toward the abstract idea. For example, Claim 7 recites acquiring medical support information and a generation-time information item indicating a clock time of completing generation of the medical support information item, and generating timeline data and displaying the timeline data. Claim 9 recites updating the weighting of information in a diagnosis department, treatment department, or another doctor. Accordingly, the dependent claims only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, see MPEP 2106.04. Thus, dependent Claims 7 and 9 are directed toward the same abstract idea of the independent claims that are grouped under certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A Analysis- Prong Two:
Claims 1 and 8 are not integrated into practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined portions presented in prong one – in this case, the processing circuitry/processor, medical information processing apparatus, patient device, online-medical-care support screen, and doctor device of Claims 1 and 8) are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using generic computer components. For example, Applicant’s specification explains that the processing circuitry 24 is a processor that reads out and executes programs stored in the memory 25 so as to perform processing in response to the patient's operation and processing in synchronization with the medical information processing apparatus 4 (Applicant’s specification, ¶ 0022). The medical information processing apparatus 4 is a web server that generates web screens to be displayed on each of the patient device 2 and the doctor device 3 [0028]. The patient device 2 is a client terminal to be operated by a patient. For example, the patient device 2 is composed of a relatively small terminal device such as a smartphone and a tablet terminal [0020]. The doctor device 3 is a client terminal to be operated by a doctor [0024]. The display control function 443 includes a function to display the timeline data on an online-medical-care support screen for supporting the online medical care, which is performed through the patient device 2 to be operated by the patient and the doctor device 3 to be operated by the doctor [0034]. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the idea. Therefore, Claims 1 and 9 are directed to an abstract idea without practical application.
Dependent Claims 7 and 9 also recite additional elements. Claim 7 recites the previously recited processing circuitry, patient device, doctor device, processor, and screen and a new additional element of a helper device and specifies the processing circuitry acquires medical support information and generation-time information from a helper device, and further, the circuitry generates timeline data indicating the temporal flow of generation of the medical support information items and displays the timeline data on the online-medical-care support screen meant for supporting the online medical care provided through the patient device, doctor device, and the helper device. Claim 9 recites the previously recited processing circuitry and processor and specifies the processing circuitry updates the weighting of information in at least one of a diagnosis department, a treatment, department, or another doctor by using the processor. However, these additional elements are described only at a high level of generality and are being used in their expected fashion, so these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practice application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. These limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, and hence, do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into practical application.
Step 2B Analysis:
The claims, when considered individually or as an ordered combination, do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to step 2A prong two, the additional elements of the processing circuitry, processor, medical information processing apparatus, patient device, online-medical-care support screen, and doctor device of Claims 1 and 8 amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in step 2B. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying "apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). For these reasons, the independent Claims 1 and 8 are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claim 9 recites previously cited additional elements, which are not eligible for the reasons stated above, and further narrows the abstract idea. Claim 9 recites the previously recited processing circuitry and specifies the processing circuitry updates the weighting of information in at least one of a diagnosis department, a treatment, department, or another doctor.
Claim 7 recites a new additional element. Claim 7 recites the previously recited processing circuitry, patient device, doctor device, and screen and a new additional element of a helper device and specifies the processing circuitry acquires medical support information and generation-time information from a helper device, and further, the circuitry generates timeline data indicating the temporal flow of generation of the medical support information items and displays the timeline data on the online-medical-care support screen meant for supporting the online medical care provided through the patient device, doctor device, and the helper device.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination does not add anything that is already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of 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 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Reden et al. (US 20160147946 A1) in view of Saliman et al. (US 20190228848 A1) and Bruce et al. (US 20230253114 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Von Reden discloses the following:
A medical information processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to: acquire a plurality of medical support information items regarding a patient and a generation-time information item… (Von Reden discloses a system including a processor configured to provide a patient library interface. The example patient library interface displays a plurality of events along a timeline for a patient and a list of items for comparison to a clinical scenario. The example clinical scenario is specified in a configuration of the patient library interface to trigger collection of the list of items for comparison. The example processor receives and adds items to the list of items for comparison based on a relevancy analysis of each item to the clinical scenario [0005]. Exam description and reason for exam can be displayed to identify the exam, followed by metadata such as exam time, location, referrer, technologist, etc. [0116].)
the generation-time information item indicating respective clock times at which the medical support information items are generated; (Von Reden discloses exam description and reason for exam can be displayed to identify the exam, followed by metadata such as exam time, location,… etc. [0116].)
generate timeline data indicating a temporal flow of generation of the medical support information items regarding the patient by using a processor to arrange the medical support information items in accordance with the generation-time information item; (Von Reden discloses in the example of FIG. 17, the Clinical Journey 1710 is a full patient ‘timeline’ of imaging exams, as well as other clinical data such as surgical and pathology reports, labs, meds, etc. The longitudinal view provided by the clinical journey 1710 helps a radiologist and/or other user notice clinical patterns more quickly and understand a patient's broader context that may not be immediately evident in a provided reason for a primary exam (e.g., a given clinical scenario) [0167]. The example processor 130 includes hardware and/or software configuring the hardware to execute one or more tasks and/or implement a particular system configuration. The example processor 130 processes data received at the input 110 and generates a result that can be provided to one or more of the output 120, … [0059].)
display the timeline data on an online-medical-care support screen for supporting online medical care that is performed via the …a doctor device to be operated by a doctor. (Von Reden discloses a system including a processor configured to provide a patient library interface. The example patient library interface displays a plurality of events along a timeline for a patient and a list of items for comparison to a clinical scenario [0005]. The workstation 214 is capable of implementing a user interface 226 to enable a healthcare practitioner and/or administrator to interact with the healthcare system 200. For example, in response to a request from a physician, the user interface 226 presents a patient medical history [0072].)
the online-medical-care support screen being displayed on a … display of the doctor device; (Von Reden discloses the workstation 214 is capable of implementing a user interface 226 to enable a healthcare practitioner and/or administrator to interact with the healthcare system 200. For example, in response to a request from a physician, the user interface 226 presents a patient medical history [0072].)
generate a request for a medical support information item by using the processor; (Von Reden discloses the actions, elements, and/or steps of a clinical workflow may include …requesting certain information to supplement a received healthcare record, retrieving additional information associated with a patient,…[0084]. The example processor 130 includes hardware and/or software configuring the hardware to execute one or more tasks and/or implement a particular system configuration. The example processor 130 processes data received at the input 110 and generates a result that can be provided to one or more of the output 120, … [0059].)
display the request for a medical support information item at a position indicating a predetermined clock time in the timeline data on the online-medical-care support screen; (Von Reden discloses exam description and reason for exam can be displayed to identify the exam, followed by metadata such as exam time, location, referrer, technologist, etc. …The clinical journey is a full patient ‘timeline’ of imaging exams, as well as other clinical data such as surgical and pathology reports, labs, medications, etc. The longitudinal view of the clinical journey helps the radiologist notice broader clinical patterns more quickly, as well as understand a patient's broader context that may not be immediately evident in a provided reason for the primary exam [0116-117].)
update weighting of the request for a medical support information item based on the first evaluation information by using the processor, (Von Reden discloses FIG. 19 illustrates a flow diagram for an example method 1900 to present comparison information and gather feedback for a clinical scenario. At block 1902, one or more documents are evaluated for relevance with respect to a clinical scenario…Relevancy and/or other importance can be evaluated and determined using a relevancy algorithm… Evaluation can be triggered based on input and/or selection of a clinical scenario, addition of new and/or updated information at the data source, etc. [0182]. The Examiner interprets the relevancy of the data as the weighting for the item based on the evaluation.)
the weighting including contribution degrees of the request for a medical support information item to the patient's diagnosis. (Von Reden discloses suggested comparison(s) are displayed in a section of a graphical user interface (e.g., entitled “My Comparisons”, etc.), such as when a radiologist begins reading an exam. If, the relevancy algorithm's suggestions prove to be insufficient to arrive at a reasonable diagnosis…this action simultaneously provides feedback to the relevancy algorithm to increase its intelligence for subsequent reads meeting similar criteria… [0035]. a thumbs up increases a weighting of that exam's criteria in the relevancy algorithm for subsequent exams, while a thumbs down removes the comparison from My Comparisons 1720 and decreases the criteria weighting by the relevancy algorithm [0176]. The Examiner interprets the relevancy of the criteria as its weight.)
and generate a request for a medical support information item necessary for the patient’s diagnosis (Von Reden discloses the workstation 214 is capable of implementing a user interface 226 to enable a healthcare practitioner and/or administrator to interact with the healthcare system 200. For example, in response to a request from a physician, the user interface 226 presents a patient medical history [0072]. The Examiner interprets patient medical history as being medical support information for providing a patient’s diagnosis.)
on the basis of the updated weighting … by using the processor. (Von Reden discloses data, usage, and/or relevancy can continue to update and/or otherwise evolve through passage of time, changing circumstances, additional clinical scenarios, etc. In certain examples, the user interface 352 may indicate when updated information becomes available [0105].)
As explained above, Von Reden discloses generating a request for medical support information, weighting medical support information based on its relevancy to a clinical scenario (e.g., for a patient diagnosis) and evaluating/re-evaluating (e.g., updating) relevancy and importance of the medical support information. In other words, Von Reden teaches weighting and re-weighting the medical support information that is requested. However, while Von Reden does not explicitly disclose updating weighting of the request for medical support information, since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit not combined as a weighted request, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself – that is in the substitution of weighting of information for the weighting of a request for said information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to weight the request for information itself based on the contribution degrees of the request to the patient’s diagnosis. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious, resulting in Von Reden rendering obvious the step of “update weighting of the request for a medical support information based on the first evaluation information… the weighting including contribution degrees of the request for a medical support information item to the patient’s diagnosis”.
Von Reden does not disclose the use of a patient device which is met by Saliman:
…from a patient device to be operated by the patient, (Saliman teaches a set of responses to a plurality of questions included in a medical questionnaire may be received from, for example, a patient device and/or a user device. Often times, the questions may pertain to a medical condition and/or state of wellness of a patient [0010].)
display…via the patient device… (Saliman teaches when a statement for each type of medical decision-making data is prepared, and/or following execution of step 255, one or more medical note interfaces like the medical note interfaces described herein may be prepared…for example communication of the medical note interface(s) to a display device like display provided by…patient device 128 [0083].)
…being displayed on a display of the patient device… (Saliman teaches when a statement for each type of medical decision-making data is prepared, and/or following execution of step 255, one or more medical note interfaces like the medical note interfaces described herein may be prepared…for example communication of the medical note interface(s) to a display device like display provided by… patient device 128 [0083].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for receiving patient data and its corresponding time information to generate timeline data as disclosed by Von Reden to incorporate the use of a patient device operated by a patient as taught by Saliman. This modification would create a system which allows the patient to easily provide their personal data and see their wellness state (see Saliman, ¶ 0010).
Van Reden and Saliman do not teach the following limitations met by Bruce:
…acquire first evaluation information indicating an evaluation of the request for a medical support information item (Bruce teaches the diagnostic database also includes weighted symptom values, which are the weighted values assigned to each symptom based upon the specific disease, illness, malady, infection, condition, allergic reaction or trauma that the symptom is associated with [0034]. The Examiner interprets the symptoms as requested information and the weighting of the symptoms as the evaluation of the symptoms relevancy/contribution to the disease.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for receiving patient data and its corresponding time information to generate timeline data as disclosed by Von Reden to incorporate acquiring an evaluation of the request information as taught by Bruce. This modification would create a system capable of assisting medical doctors in collecting necessary data to help them make an accurate diagnosis (see Bruce, ¶ 0006).
Regarding Claim 8, Van Reden discloses the following:
A medical information processing system comprising:… a doctor device to be operated by a doctor; (Von Reden discloses a system including a processor configured to provide a patient library interface. The example patient library interface displays a plurality of events along a timeline for a patient [0005]. The workstation 214 is capable of implementing a user interface 226 to enable a healthcare practitioner and/or administrator to interact with the healthcare system 200. For example, in response to a request from a physician, the user interface 226 presents a patient medical history [0072].)
wherein the medical information processing apparatus comprises processing circuitry configured to: acquire…a plurality of medical support information items regarding the patient (Von Reden discloses a system including a processor configured to provide a patient library interface. The example patient library interface displays a plurality of events along a timeline for a patient and a list of items for comparison to a clinical scenario. The example clinical scenario is specified in a configuration of the patient library interface to trigger collection of the list of items for comparison. The example processor receives and adds items to the list of items for comparison based on a relevancy analysis of each item to the clinical scenario [0005]. Exam description …can be displayed to identify the exam, followed by metadata such as exam time, location, referrer, technologist, etc. [0116].)
and a generation-time information item indicating respective clock times at which the medical support information items are generated; (Von Reden discloses exam description and reason for exam can be displayed to identify the exam, followed by metadata such as exam time, location,… etc. [0116].)
generate timeline data indicating a temporal flow of generation of the medical support information items regarding the patient by using a processor to arrange the medical support information items in accordance with the generation-time information item; (Von Reden discloses in the example of FIG. 17, the Clinical Journey 1710 is a full patient ‘timeline’ of imaging exams, as well as other clinical data such as surgical and pathology reports, labs, meds, etc. The longitudinal view provided by the clinical journey 1710 helps a radiologist and/or other user notice clinical patterns more quickly and understand a patient's broader context that may not be immediately evident in a provided reason for a primary exam (e.g., a given clinical scenario) [0167]. The example processor 130 includes hardware and/or software configuring the hardware to execute one or more tasks and/or implement a particular system configuration. The example processor 130 processes data received at the input 110 and generates a result that can be provided to one or more of the output 120, … [0059].)
and display the timeline data on an online-medical-care support screen for supporting online medical care that is performed via…the doctor device. (Von Reden discloses a system including a processor configured to provide a patient library interface. The example patient library interface displays a plurality of events along a timeline for a patient and a list of items for comparison to a clinical scenario [0005]. The workstation 214 is capable of implementing a user interface 226 to enable a healthcare practitioner and/or administrator to interact with the healthcare system 200. For example, in response to a request from a physician, the user interface 226 presents a patient medical history [0072].)
the online-medical-care support screen being displayed on a display of the … doctor device; (Von Reden discloses the workstation 214 is capable of implementing a user interface 226 to enable a healthcare practitioner and/or administrator to interact with the healthcare system 200. For example, in response to a request from a physician, the user interface 226 presents a patient medical history [0072].)
generate a request for a medical support information item by using the processor; (Von Reden discloses the actions, elements, and/or steps of a clinical workflow may include …requesting certain information to supplement a received healthcare record, retrieving additional information associated with a patient,…[0084]. The workstation 214 is capable of implementing a user interface 226 to enable a healthcare practitioner and/or administrator to interact with the healthcare system 200…in response to a request from a physician, the user interface 226 presents a patient medical history [0072]. The example processor 130 includes hardware and/or software configuring the hardware to execute one or more tasks and/or implement a particular system configuration. The example processor 130 processes data received at the input 110 and generates a result that can be provided to one or more of the output 120, memory 140, and communication interface 150 [0059].)
display the request for a medical support information item at a position indicating a predetermined clock time in the timeline data on the online-medical-care support screen; (Von Reden discloses exam description and reason for exam can be displayed to identify the exam, followed by metadata such as exam time, location, referrer, technologist, etc. …The clinical journey is a full patient ‘timeline’ of imaging exams, as well as other clinical data such as surgical and pathology reports, labs, medications, etc. The longitudinal view of the clinical journey helps the radiologist notice broader clinical patterns more quickly, as well as understand a patient's broader context that may not be immediately evident in a provided reason for the primary exam [0116-117].)
and update weighting of the request for a medical support information item based on the first evaluation information by using the processor, (Von Reden discloses FIG. 19 illustrates a flow diagram for an example method 1900 to present comparison information and gather feedback for a clinical scenario. At block 1902, one or more documents are evaluated for relevance with respect to a clinical scenario… Relevancy and/or other importance can be evaluated and determined using a relevancy algorithm… Evaluation can be triggered based on input and/or selection of a clinical scenario, addition of new and/or updated information at the data source, etc. [0182]. The Examiner interprets the relevancy of the data as the weighting for the item based on the evaluation. The example processor 130 includes hardware and/or software configuring the hardware to execute one or more tasks and/or implement a particular system configuration. The example processor 130 processes data received at the input 110 and generates a result that can be provided to one or more of the output 120, memory 140, and communication interface 150 [0059].))
the weighting including contribution degrees of the request for a medical support information item to the patient's diagnosis. (Von Reden discloses a thumbs up increases a weighting of that exam's criteria in the relevancy algorithm for subsequent exams, while a thumbs down removes the comparison from My Comparisons 1720 and decreases the criteria weighting by the relevancy algorithm [0176]. The Examiner interprets the relevancy of the criteria as its weight.)
Van Reden does not disclose the use of a patient device which is met by Saliman:
a patient device to be operated by a patient;…, from the patient device,… (Saliman teaches a set of responses to a plurality of questions included in a medical questionnaire may be received from, for example, a patient device and/or a user device. Often times, the questions may pertain to a medical condition and/or state of wellness of a patient [0010].)
a medical information processing apparatus capable of communicating with the… patient device and the doctor device, (Saliman teaches treatment facility computer system 134 may be a computer system that is located in, and/or communicatively coupled to, a treatment facility…an EMR (as stored in EMR database 130) may include notes prepared by a treatment provider regarding the health of a patient, results of medical tests performed on a patient, treatments administered on a patient, etc.…medical records from treatment facility computer system 134 may be communicated to user device 124, patient device 128…[0044]. A treatment provider (also referred to herein as a “user”)…[0043].)
…being displayed on a display of the patient device… (Saliman teaches when a statement for each type of medical decision-making data is prepared, and/or following execution of step 255, one or more medical note interfaces like the medical note interfaces described herein may be prepared…for example communication of the medical note interface(s) to a display device like display provided by… patient device 128 [0083].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for receiving patient data and its corresponding time information to generate timeline data as disclosed by Von Reden to incorporate the use of a patient device operated by a patient as taught by Saliman. This modification would create a system which allows the patient to easily provide their personal data and see their wellness state (see Saliman, ¶ 0010).
Van Reden and Saliman do not teach the following limitations met by Bruce:
…acquire first evaluation information indicating evaluation of the request for a medical support information item (Bruce teaches the diagnostic database also includes weighted symptom values, which are the weighted values assigned to each symptom based upon the specific disease, illness, malady, infection, condition, allergic reaction or trauma that the symptom is associated with [0034]. The Examiner interprets the symptoms as requested information and the weighting of the symptoms as the evaluation of the symptoms relevancy/contribution to the disease.)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for receiving patient data and its corresponding time information to generate timeline data as disclosed by Von Reden to incorporate acquiring an evaluation of the request information as taught by Bruce. This modification would create a system capable of assisting medical doctors in collecting necessary data to help them make an accurate diagnosis (see Bruce, ¶ 0006).
Regarding Claim 9, Von Reden, Saliman, and Bruce teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Von Reden further discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to update the weighting of information in at least one of a diagnosis department, another doctor by using the processor. (Von Reden discloses FIG. 19 illustrates a flow diagram for an example method 1900 to present comparison information and gather feedback for a clinical scenario. At block 1902, one or more documents are evaluated for relevance with respect to a clinical scenario…Relevancy and/or other importance can be evaluated and determined using a relevancy algorithm …Evaluation can be triggered based on input and/or selection of a clinical scenario, addition of new and/or updated information at the data source, etc. [0182]. The Examiner interprets the relevancy of the data as the weighting for the item based on the evaluation. The example processor 130 includes hardware and/or software configuring the hardware to execute one or more tasks and/or implement a particular system configuration. The example processor 130 processes data received at the input 110 and generates a result that can be provided to one or more of the output 120, memory 140, and communication interface 150 [0059].))
Von Reden and Saliman do not teach the information being related to a treatment department which is met by Bruce:
…a treatment department,… (Bruce teaches devices are available to these medical doctors for use in collecting patient data which can be used to help them make a decision on a diagnosis of the specific illness, malady, disease, infection, condition or trauma afflicting the patient [0006].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for receiving patient data and its corresponding time information to generate timeline data as disclosed by Von Reden to incorporate the data being associated with a treatment department as taught by Bruce. This modification would create a system capable of assisting medical doctors in collecting necessary data to help them make an accurate diagnosis (see Bruce, ¶ 0006).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Reden, Saliman, and Bruce in view of Hettig et al. (US 20220301707 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Von Reden, Saliman, and Bruce teach the limitations as seen in the rejection of Claim 1 above. Von Reden further discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to acquire both a medical support information item regarding the patient or a third person (Von Reden discloses a system including a processor configured to provide a patient library interface. The example patient library interface displays a plurality of events along a timeline for a patient and a list of items for comparison to a clinical scenario. The example clinical scenario is specified in a configuration of the patient library interface to trigger collection of the list of items for comparison. The example processor receives and adds items to the list of items for comparison based on a relevancy analysis of each item to the clinical scenario [0005].)
and a generation-time information item indicating a clock time of completing generation of the medical support information item (Von Reden discloses exam description and reason for exam can be displayed to identify the exam, followed by metadata such as exam time, location, referrer, technologist, etc. [0116].)
generate the timeline data indicating the temporal flow of generation of the medical support information items regarding the patient or the helper by using the processor to arrange the medical support information items in accordance with the generation-time information item; (Von Reden discloses in the example of FIG. 17, the Clinical Journey 1710 is a full patient ‘timeline’ of imaging exams, as well as other clinical data such as surgical and pathology reports, labs, meds, etc. The longitudinal view provided by the clinical journey 1710 helps a radiologist and/or other user notice clinical patterns more quickly and understand a patient's broader context that may not be immediately evident in a provided reason for a primary exam (e.g., a given clinical scenario) [0167]. The example processor 130 includes hardware and/or software configuring the hardware to execute one or more tasks and/or implement a particular system configuration. The example processor 130 processes data received at the input 110 and generates a result that can be provided to one or more of the output 120, memory 140, and communication interface 150 [0059].)
display the timeline data on the online-medical-care support screen meant for supporting the online medical care provided through…the doctor device,… (Von Reden discloses a system including a processor configured to provide a patient library interface. The example patient library interface displays a plurality of events along a timeline for a patient and a list of items for comparison to a clinical scenario [0005]. The workstation 214 is capable of implementing a user interface 226 to enable a healthcare practitioner and/or administrator to interact with the healthcare system 200. For example, in response to a request from a physician, the user interface 226 presents a patient medical history [0072].)
Von Reden does not disclose the use of a patient device which is met by Saliman:
…being displayed on a display of the patient device… (Saliman teaches when a statement for each type of medical decision-making data is prepared, and/or following execution of step 255, one or more medical note interfaces like the medical note interfaces described herein may be prepared…for example communication of the medical note interface(s) to a display device like display provided by…patient device 128 [0083].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for receiving patient data and its corresponding time information to generate timeline data as disclosed by Von Reden to incorporate the use of a patient device operated by a patient as taught by Saliman. This modification would create a system which allows the patient to easily provide their personal data and see their wellness state (see Saliman, ¶ 0010).
Von Reden and Saliman do not teach the use of a helper device which is met by Hettig:
from a helper device to be operated by the third person…display… the data… through.. the helper device. (Hettig teaches a device for managing caregiver and family communications. The device comprises: at least one processor; and a memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: receive an invitation to link the device to a patient; receive an update … and display the update,…[0005]. FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a system 100 that includes mobile devices 102 that each operate a family communications application 106 for managing updates from one or more caregivers 12 providing care to a patient 14 … to one or more family members 16 of the patient. The updates from the caregivers 12 to the family members 16 are communicated via a communications network 104 [0058].)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for receiving patient data and its corresponding time information to generate timeline data as disclosed by Von Reden to incorporate the use of a helper device operated by a third person as taught by Hettig. This modification would allow for family members to remain updated on the patient’s status (see Hettig, ¶ 0001-2).
Relevant Art Not Currently Being Applied
The following references are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure but are not currently being applied:
Iliff et al. (US 20030199740 A1) teaches a method of diagnosing diseases which assigns symptoms weighted values according to their significance.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101 to Claims 1 and 7-9, Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated in light of the amendments above.
Applicant argues Claim 1 is clearly associated with hardware elements and achieves a technical effect such as reflecting updates to the timeline in one device upon the timelines in the other two devices in real time (see [0038 and 0106] of the specification). Requests are weighted and all related medical sources can have uniform and up-to-date weighted information. Data stored in the memory can be updated allowing future requests to be improved. Claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea but is directed to a system with hardware elements that achieves a technical effect (see Applicant’s Remarks, p. 6).
Regarding (a), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 1 and 2, the limitations of the claim are analyzed under two classifications (1) the abstract idea of the claim and (2) additional elements of the claim. Applicant asserts the patient device, processor, and support screen are not abstract ideas and Examiner agrees that such limitations are not abstract and are instead analyzed under prong 2 as additional elements to the abstract idea. The abstract idea consists of the underlined limitations shown in the reaction of claim 1 above; that is, the steps of acquiring a plurality of data points, generating a timeline of data, displaying the timeline data, generating a request for medical support information, displaying the request, acquiring evaluation information, updating weighting of the request, and generating a request for medical support information needed for the patient’s diagnosis on the basis of the updated weighting are all steps which are identified as a part of the abstract idea. It is important to note that the text within the parentheses stating social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions are provided as examples and not an exclusive listing and that the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility on p. 5 states certain activity between a person and a computer may fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping.
Applicant argues Claim 8 is also directed to a system with hardware elements that achieves a technical effect, and not to an abstract idea. Claim 8 includes plural devices and uses a processor to acquire, update and generate (p. 7).
Regarding (b), Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in (a) above, the additional elements identified in the 101 rejection are not considered to be a part of the abstract idea and instead are considered in Step 2A, Prong Two to determine if the additional elements provide a practical application.
Here, the claims do not show how the processor, display screen of the patient, doctor, and helper device improve on the ability of the devices to provide information. On review of the Specification, the present invention shows the devices merely display a determines timeline data on the various listed devices (Detailed Description in ¶ 0038 and 0106). It is unclear to Examiner how the specific additional elements, alone or in combination, provide a solution to the stated problem in context of the abstract idea of detecting a deviation in expected operation of the medical device. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art (MPEP § 2106.05(a)). Additionally, an important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03 (MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II)). The instant claims seem analogous to MPEP § 2106.05(a)(II) examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement to technology, example iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48. MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) states that the mere automation of a manual process, such as using a generic computer to process data, is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality or a technological solution to a technological problem.
Here the instant claims seem more analogous to "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f).
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103 to Claims 1 and 7-9, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The rejection has been updated in light of the amendments above.
Applicant argues Office Action points to the method shown in Fig. 19 and finds it shows one or more documents are evaluated for relevancy with respect to a clinical scenario in block 1902. In [0182], relevancy is aspects of documents, characteristics of the scenario, or preference/ rating information to provide some of all of source document(s) for comparison in review of the scenario. In Claim 1 the weighting is based on first evaluation information which indicates "an evaluation of the request for a medical support information item from the doctor device." Nothing in [0182] relates to the request from a doctor device. Von Reden is using relevance to a clinical scenario for "comparison in review of the clinical scenario" which is not an evaluation of a request. The "weighting" in Claim 1 includes "contribution degrees of the request for a medical support information item to the patient's diagnosis" which is very different from the criteria weighting "by a relevancy algorithm" of Von Reden which is not related to how the request relates to the medical support information item to the patient's diagnosis. Lastly, no request is made based upon updated weighting, and no weighting of a request is updated (see Applicant’s Remarks, p. 7).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 0182 is not used to disclose the content of the weighting, but instead this rejection shows the method updates the weighting of the algorithm based upon feedback. The indication of what the weighting includes is given in the following limitation and shown as being rejected by paragraphs 0035 and 0176. As shown in [0035], Von Reden uses the relevancy algorithm to determine a piece of information’s relevancy in providing a diagnosis. Although the weighting in Von Reden does not weight the request itself, it does provide a weight for the information that the request entails. It would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another obtain such predictable result of the instant claims (see the rejection above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA R GEDRA whose telephone number is (571)270-0944. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Peter H Choi can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/OLIVIA R. GEDRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights