DETAILED ACTION
Status
This Final Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 30 March 2026. No claims have been canceled, claims 1-2, 4-5, and 7 have been amended, and no new claims have been added; therefore, claims 1-7 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 overcomes the claim objection(s); therefore, the Examiner withdraws the objection(s).
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 112; therefore, the Examiner withdraws the rejection(s).
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.
Priority
This application is a 371 National Stage Entry of PCT/JP2022/044439, filed on 1 December 2022, which claims benefit to Japanese application JP2021-197223, filed on 3 December 2021. The claim(s) to priority is/are acknowledged.
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 1-7 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 a system (claims 1-3 and 6-7), method (claim 4), and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 5), 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 an information processing system, comprising: circuitry configured to acquire a disease-related information including at least an optic nerve disease-related information of a subject, add a visualization information generated based on the disease-related information including the optic nerve disease-related information to a first figure representing a shape of at least a part of a human body, and generate a display information for displaying a predetermined display on a display part of a subject terminal such that the display information includes a second figure in which the visualization information is added to the first figure, wherein the disease-related information includes a disease type information, a disease target site information, and a test result information for a disease, the visualization information includes a graphic indicating a position of the disease based on the disease-related information, and the circuitry is configured to add the graphic having a different form corresponding to a disease degree information determined based on the disease-related information to the first figure
Independent claims 4 and 5 are analyzed similar to claim 1 above since claim 4 is directed to an information processing method, comprising the same or similar operations as at claim 1, and claim 5 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that when executed by a computer, an information processing system is caused to execute a method comprising the same or similar operations as at claim 1.
The dependent claims (claims 3-4 and 6-7) appear to be encompassed by the abstract idea of the independent claims since they merely indicate the acquired information includes at least a part of a flicker stimulation test result (claim 3), providing the flicker stimulation test (claim 4), generating the test result information based on a setting that includes input response to a change in the flicker stimulation (claim 6), and/or that the disease status information is with respect to neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (claim 7).
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 deriving information from acquired information and adding that derived information to a graphic, image or illustration; 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 following grouping(s) of subject matter:
Certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g. … commercial or legal interactions such as agreements, contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities/behaviors, or business relations; and/or managing personal behavior or relationships between people such as social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes (e.g., concepts performed in the human mind such as observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion).
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 using an information processing system, comprising: circuitry configured to perform operations (at claims 1 and 4), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that when executed by a computer, an information processing system is caused to execute to perform the same or similar operations (at claim 5). 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. Applicant ¶¶ 0016-0017 (as submitted, 0040-0041 as published) indicate that both the server device and subject terminal used to implement the claimed invention are generic computers – “a workstation, a personal computer, a virtual computer logically realized by a cloud computing, or the like” (at 0016), “a device owned by a subject … such as a smartphone, the personal computer, or a tablet terminal or the like” (at 0017).
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Medeiros et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0019136, hereinafter Medeiros) .
Claim 1: Medeiros discloses an information processing system, comprising:
circuitry (see Medeiros at least at, e.g., ¶¶ 0169-0170, circuits such as ASIC; citation hereafter by number only) configured to acquire a disease-related information including at least an optic nerve disease-related information of a subject, add a visualization information generated based on the disease-related information including the optic nerve disease-related information to a first figure representing a shape of at least a part of a human body, and generate a display information for displaying a predetermined display on a display part of a subject terminal such that the display information includes a second figure in which the visualization information is added to the first figure (0033, “combined structure and function index (CSFI)”, 0139, “The CSFI was also shown to successfully stage different degrees of glaucomatous damage, which is an essential requirement for any method proposed to detect disease progression over time. To separate eyes with early from moderate visual field loss, the CSFI had ROC curve area of 0.94 compared to only 0.77 for SDOCT average thickness (P<0.001). Similarly, for separating moderate from advanced glaucomatous field loss, the ROC curve area of the CSFI was 0.96, which was again significantly better than that for average RNFL thickness (ROC area=0.70; P<0.001). FIG. 21 illustrates two eyes with different degrees of visual field loss (MDs of -13.3 dB and -24.5 dB) successfully discriminated by the CSFI but not by SDOCT results”, Fig. 21 as illustrating the display output on a computer such as a “mobile or fixed computing device” including display screen outputs as indicated at 0159 and 0161),
wherein the disease-related information includes a disease type information, a disease target site information, and a test result information for a disease, the visualization information includes a graphic indicating a position of the disease based on the disease-related information, and the circuitry is configured to add the graphic having a different form corresponding to a disease degree information determined based on the disease-related information to the first figure (0139 and Fig. 21 as above).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected on the same basis as claim 1 above since Medeiros discloses an information processing method, comprising the same or similar activities as at claim 1 (for claim 4) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that when executed by a computer, an information processing system is caused to execute a method comprising the same or similar activities as at claim 1 (for claim 5). See Medeiros as cited above and Medeiros at 0008.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 2-3 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medeiros in view of Samec et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0365101, hereinafter Samec) .
Claim 2: Medeiros discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the optic nerve disease-related information includes at least a part of a test result information of a test using a flicker stimulation for the subject (at claim 2), wherein the circuitry is configured to provide the test using the flicker stimulation (at claim 3 depending from claim 2), wherein the circuitry is configured to generate the test result information including a setting information in response to an input operation by the subject when the flicker stimulation is changed” (at claim 6 depending from claim 3), and wherein the circuitry is configured to transmit the display information indicating a disease status of the subject with respect to a neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder based on the second figure (at claim 7, depending from claim 1). Samec, though, teaches “a head-mounted display configured to project light to a user to display augmented reality image content” (Samec at 0012, embodiment 1) to “determine in the user a presence of a neurological condition or neurological state associated with the reaction” (Samec at 0017, still indicating embodiment 1), “wherein the neurological condition is at least one of multiple sclerosis, neuromyelitis optica, optic neuritis or traumatic optic neuropathy” (Samec at 0122, indicating limiting embodiment 1 through embodiments 63-67 – see Samec at 0117-0121) and/or “wherein the neurological condition is associated with at least one of: hemispatial neglect, multiple sclerosis, neuromyelitis optica, ataxia, intoxication, and stroke” (Samec at 0140, indicating limiting embodiment 1 through embodiments 84-85 – see Samec at 0138-0139), by presenting tests and detecting user reaction to the test (Samec at 0629-0630, Fig. 11), including “wherein the provided stimuli comprises a flickering patch of light and a non-flickering patch of light” or “wherein the reaction of the user comprises a change in hue perception of the flickering patch of light” (Samec at 0141-0142, also limiting embodiment 1; see also Samec at 0657), varying flicker rate or frequency (Samec at 0077, 0514, 0519, 0526, 0656, and 0769), where the system can also “provide a perception aid, including a brain training program, in any arbitrary environment. Without being limited to theory, the efficacy of retraining and/or altering neural tissues of the brain is enhanced by long and repeated exposure to the stimuli and/or therapies described herein” (Samec at 0794). Therefore, the Examiner understands and finds that to provide a test including flicker stimulation and detect results including for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to enhance efficacy of detection and treatment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine or modify the optic nerve disease detection of Medeiros with the flicker and neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder testing of Samec in order to provide a test including flicker stimulation and detect results including for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder so as to enhance efficacy of detection and treatment.
The rationale for combining in this manner is that to provide a test including flicker stimulation and detect results including for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder is applying a known technique to a known device, method, or product ready for improvement to yield predictable results so as to enhance efficacy of detection and treatment as explained above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant only alleges that “regarding the objection and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 101, Claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 have been amended to clarify the noted informalities and the subject matters recited therein” (Remarks at 5), and then that “it is respectfully submitted that Medeiros, Samec et al. and their combination do not teach or suggest … amended Claim 1” (Remarks at 6, including some italicized claim language).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Applicant provides no reasoning or explanation regarding how or why the claims would not be considered an abstract idea based on the current examination guidelines, nor how or why the indicated references do not read on the claims. Applicant merely alleges that the art does not read on the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Merck Manual, Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorder (NMOSD), downloaded from https://www.merckmanuals.com/home/brain-spinal-cord-and-nerve-disorders/multiple-sclerosis-ms-and-related-disorders/neuromyelitis-optica-spectrum-disorder-nmosd?gclsrc=aw.ds&&network=x&matchtype=&keyword=&creative=&device=c&devicemodel=&placement=&position=&campaignid=18703109500&adgroupid=&loc_physical_ms=9009690&loc_interest_ms=&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=18703173298&gbraid=0AAAAADiUoblE9d6MZJdqVhwYkOiiGMjY7&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI-di1z-mLkQMVcFN_AB0AnDfZEAAYAyAAEgJJn_D_BwE on 25 November 2025, dated 2025.
Contentti et al., Neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders: from pathophysiology to therapeutic strategies. J Neuroinflammation. 2021 Sep 16;18(1):208. doi: 10.1186/s12974-021-02249-1. PMID: 34530847; PMCID: PMC8444436. Downloaded from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34530847/ on 25 November 2025.
Tian, et al. Bidirectional degeneration in the visual pathway in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorder (NMOSD). Multiple Sclerosis Journal. 2017;24(12):1585-1593. doi:10.1177/1352458517727604, downloaded 25 November 2025 from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1352458517727604, indicating that “In total, 36 NMOSD and 24 healthy controls (HCs) were enrolled. Three-dimensional T1-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and diffusion tensor imaging were used to analyze damage to the posterior visual pathway. Damage to the anterior visual pathway was measured by optical coherence tomography” (at Abstract, Methods).
Bukhari et al., Molecular pathogenesis of neuromyelitis optica. Int J Mol Sci. 2012 Oct 11;13(10):12970-93. doi: 10.3390/ijms131012970. PMID: 23202933; PMCID: PMC3497307, downloaded 3 June 2026 from https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3497307/pdf/ijms-13-12970.pdf, indicating “Neuromyelitis optica (NMO) … [and] Despite rapid advances in the understanding of NMO pathogenesis, unanswered questions remain, particularly with regards to disease mechanisms in NMO IgG seronegative cases. Increasing knowledge of the molecular pathology is leading to improved treatment strategies” (at Abstract), with at least Figs. 1 and 2 showing images or diagrams with disease-related information.
Sheng-Che Hung, Imaging of Neuromyelitis Optica Spectrum Disorders, Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI, Volume 41, Issue 3, 2020, Pages 319-331, ISSN 0887-2171, https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sult.2020.02.006, downloaded 3 June 2026 from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887217120300147, describing “Neuromyelitis optica (NMO)” (at Abstract) and including various images with overlays and/or disease-related information included.
Everett et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0081130, hereinafter Everett) describes “a method for performing analysis on the optic nerve head of a patient comprising the steps of acquiring a 3D image data set, defining an optic disc margin, determining a surface between the optic disc margin and the vitreoretinal interface (VRI) having the minimum or smallest possible area, and providing an output based on the minimum area surface as a diagnostic of ocular health” (Everett at 0011), and that “FIGS. 13a-d show various aspects of the output that could be provided using the invented method” (Everett at 0059) – indicating images for display that have overlays indicating disease-related information such as identified locations of interest in relation to the disease.
Schmidt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0146784, hereinafter Schmidt) indicates “The method further includes the step of analyzing the image to identify medical data depicted within the image; and overlaying a description of the identified medical data over the magnified image” (Schmidt at 0025), “the processor overlays medical data over the magnified image. The medical data may change based on the specimen being viewed…. the one or more processors automatically determine what is being viewed and overlay medical data based on the automatic image recognition” (Schmidt at 0052), and “FIG. 9 is an illustrative user interface diagram 900 depicting the display of the magnified image as well as the data overlays of resolution 804, medical data 806, and focus 802 shown over the magnified image 808” (Schmidt at 0054).
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