Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites "wherein the processor is configured to: The multiple subjects make the limitation unclear/ambiguous.
Claims 6 and 9 also recite “wherein the processor is configured to:” followed by a different subject.
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 1-18 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-18 and 28 are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
For claims 1-18 and 28:
Step 1: The claims as a whole fall within one or more statutory categories:
Yes, claims 1-9 and 28 are directed to a product and claims 10-18 are directed to a process.
Step 2A: Are the claims directed to a judicial exception (law of nature, natural phenomenon, abstract idea)? The claims are directed to an abstract idea. See below rationale.
Claim 1 recites:
An apparatus for progress diagram generation, comprising at least one processor configured to: acquire observation information related to an observation target, (data gathering)
extract date and time information indicating at least one of a date or a time and event information associated with the date and time information from the observation information and structure them to generate time series data (data gathering and organization)
generate a progress diagram showing the event information along a time elapsed based on the time series data (Mental process that can be performed by a human using a pen and paper)
Step 2A: Prong 2 Analysis: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although Claim 1 recites an “apparatus…comprising at least one processor”, the claim does not amount to significantly more than a generic computer with a processor to perform the mental steps recited in the claim.
Step 2B Analysis: the claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The steps to “acquire observation information” and “extract date and time information… and structure them” are data gathering to “generate a progress diagram”, a mental process that could be performed a human using a pen and paper.
Claims 10 and 28 are similar in scope to Claim 1, and are directed to an abstract idea. Claim 10 recites the method used by the system of Claim 1 so it rejected under the same rationale. Claim 28 recites a CRM, the claim does not amount to significantly more than a generic computer with a processor and CRM to perform the abstract ideas recited in the claim.
Claims 2, 4, and 8 are directed to further limit the diagram generation of claim 1. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of mental process that could be performed a human using a pen and paper.
Claims 11, 13, and 17 are similar in scope to Claims 2 and 4, and are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 3 is directed to recognizing/gathering data. These steps are part of a mental process that could be performed in human mind, and therefore the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12 is similar in scope to Claim 2, and is directed to an abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 6 are directed to further limit the diagram generation of claim 1. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of mental process that could be performed a human using a pen and paper.
Claims 14 and 15 are similar in scope to Claims 5 and 6, and are directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 7 further recites steps to “register a freely selected word… in dictionary information” and “recognize, using the dictionary information, event information having the same word” to generate the diagram. In other words, the claim recites gathering, recognizing/grouping, and fusing/manipulating data. These steps are part of a mental process that could be performed in human mind, and therefore the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16 is similar in scope to Claim 7, and is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites the additional limitation of “functions of an add-in or a functions of an application” to perform data acquisition/manipulation, merely amounts to the use of a computer or machinery in its ordinary capacity amounts to invoking computers merely as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Claim 18 is similar in scope to Claim 9, and is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2-5, 8-11, 13-14, 17-18, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe (JP2017117265A) and Kano (US20200105388A1).
Regarding claim 1, Okabe teaches an apparatus for progress diagram generation, comprising at least one processor configured to (Okabe; ¶0039, describes a processor that loads the program from memory) acquire observation information related to an observation target (¶0050, ¶0060, describes issuing an acquisition request and acquires medical care data/clinical data of the target patient from the server group. This teaches acquiring observation information relatedto an observation target) extract date and time information indicating at least one of a date or a time and event information associated with the date and time information from the observation information (¶0031, describes examination data including examination items, examination values, and examination date and time stored in association with each other and medication data including dosage and administration period stored in association. Okabe further describes, ¶0067, generating displays with time series changes by plotting inspection values at each time, which uses the date and time information and associated event information from the observation information. This teaches extracting date and time information and event information associated with the date and time information from the observation information.) and generate a progress diagram showing the event information along a time elapsed based on the time series data (¶0051, 0062, 0067, describes generating a display screen including a topics table with a date and time axis and time-series graphs of inspection values plotted over time. This teaches generating a progress diagram showing event information along a time elapsed.)
However, Okabe does not explicitly disclose to structure them to generate time series data.
Kano, ¶0067, describes extracting data attributes from obtained medical examination data items, where the data attributes include measurement time and, ¶0078, generating medical examination data items accompanied by a sequence of data attributes (structured records with time attributes). This teaches structuring extracted date and time information and event information to generate time series data.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Okabe’s medical data display method with Kano’s data structuring technique in order to improve data organization and diagram display generation.
Claim 10, has similar limitations as of claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, except claim 10 recites a computer to implement the method. Okabe, in view of Kano, describes (¶0039) a CPU and memory executing programming to control a computer.
Claim 28, has similar limitations as of claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1, except claim 28 recites “non-transitory computer readable recording medium recorded with the program” that causes a computer to execute the method. Okabe, in view of Kano, describes (¶0039) a CPU and memory executing programming to control a computer and, ¶0038, describes the memory including hard disk drives (non-transitory).
Regarding claim 2, Okabe in view of Kano teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: generate a progress diagram including a first axis indicating a time elapsed and a second axis indicating the event information based on the time series data (Okabe; ¶0062, describes the topics table has a date and time axis assigned to the top along the row direction and an item axis assigned to the left side along the column direction; ¶0063, the date and time axis is divided into three stages showing year in the upper stage, date in the middle stage, and time in the lower stage. ¶0066, the item axis displays examination items including body temperature, pulse, blood pressure, BNP, and urine volume. This teaches generating a progress diagram including a first axis indicating a time elapsed (date and time axis) and a second axis indicating the even information (item axis with examination items) based on the time series data.)
Claim 11, has similar limitations as of claim 2, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Okabe in view of Kano teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: generate the progress diagram showing the event information by at least one of a stacked chart, a line chart, or a comment (Okabe; ¶0067, describes that, in the row direction of the body temperature stage and the pulse stage, displaying line graphs by plotting the inspection values at each time and connecting by lines. This teaches generating the progress diagram showing the event information by a line chart.)
Claim 13, has similar limitations as of claim 4, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Okabe in view of Kano teaches the apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to: the observation information includes at least one of quantitative information or qualitative information as the event information (Okabe; ¶0031, describes examination data includes examination values stored with examination date and time (quantitative information) and, ¶0032, events such as hospital admission, patient complaints, medical records, nursing records, and other events occurring the patient’s clinical process are recorded in time series (qualitative information)) generate the progress diagram showing the quantitative information by at least one of the stacked chart or the line chart and showing the qualitative information by the comment, based on the time series data (Okabe; ¶0067, describes displaying line graphs by plotting inspection values at each time and connecting them by lines. This teaches showing quantitative information by a line chart. Okabe further describes, ¶0068, displaying character information indicating the kind of medicine (qualitative) along the time axis in association with administration timing. This teaches showing qualitative information by a comment.)
Claim 14, has similar limitations as of claim 5, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, Okabe in view of Kano teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: output the progress diagram in an editable format (Okabe; ¶0029, describes that the medical care support server “outputs the display screen 19 in the form of screen data for web distribution created in a markup language such as XML” and that “Instead of XML, another data description language such as JSON…may be used” and, ¶0027, editing the display screen in response to an editing request (editable) and edits the display screen. This teaches outputting the progress diagram in an editable format.)
Claim 17, has similar limitations as of claim 8, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Okabe in view of Kano teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: a functions of an add-in or a functions of an application performs at least one of acquire the observation information, generate the time series data, or generate the progress diagram (Okabe; ¶0046, 0048, describes an application program that (¶0050) acquires medical care/clinical data and (¶0051) generates the display screen (progress). This teaches that functions of an application perform at least one of acquiring the observation information and generating the progress diagram.)
Claim 18, has similar limitations as of claim 9, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe (JP2017117265A), Kano (US20200105388A1), and Zhang (US20110246388A1).
Regarding claim 6, Okabe in view of Kano teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to:
an object indicating the execution date and time is drawn in the progress diagram (Okabe; ¶0064, describes the screen output control unit arranges the latest date at the rightmost end of the date/time axis and highlights the latest date with hatching. This teaches drawing an object on the progress diagram that indicates the execution time.)
However, Okabe in view of Kano does not explicitly disclose when the observation information includes date and time information indicating at least one of a date or a time in future later than an execution date and time of processing related to generation of the progress diagram.
Zhang (Zhang; claim 1) describes marking a time-based chart with indicators positioned according to dates of events and “wherein the dates of events can be of future dates”. This teaches that the observation information includes date/time information indicating future dates later than the execution time of the chart rendering process.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the progress diagram display of Okabe in view of Kano, to include Zhang’s future-dated event information to enable users to more easily distinguish past/present information from future information.
Claim 15, has similar limitations as of claim 6, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe (JP2017117265A), Kano (US20200105388A1), and Pendergast (US20120210220A1).
Regarding claim 7, Okabe in view of Kano teaches the apparatus according to claim 5. However, Okabe in view of Kano fails to teach, but Pendergast teaches to wherein the processor is configured to register a freely selected word to be recognized by the time series data generation unit and classification information in association with each other in dictionary information for recognition (Pendergast; ¶0222, describes the media editing application builds a diction of potential keywords based on user inputs and uses that dictionary when receiving keyword input and providing keyword suggestions. This teaches registering freely selected words in dictionary information for recognition.) the classification information is information indicating that the freely selected word is a word classified into any one of the quantitative information to be shown by a stacked chart, the quantitative information to be shown by a line chart, or the qualitative information to be shown by a comment in a progress diagram (Pendergast; ¶0028, describes searching a timeline for different types of timeline associated items (keywords, markers, etc.) and providing a search function that can be limited by the type of item being searched, which reads on classification information indicating a presentation category for a registered word/item. This teaches associating the freely selected word with classification information indicating how the word’s associated information is to be presented.) recognize, using the dictionary information, event information having the same word as a word registered in the dictionary information to generate the progress diagram showing the event information (Pendergast; ¶0024-25, 0027, describes a timeline search tool that searches for clips and clips associated with keywords/markers, filters results based on the search parameter, and allows selection of a result to navigate the timeline to the corresponding position for display. This teaches recognizing even information having the same word as a registered word and generating a timeline/progress-type display showing the recognized event information.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the progress diagram generation of Okabe in view of Kano with Pendergast’s keyword dictionary and keyword based search/filtering techniques to allow more customizable organization and display of even information in the diagram.
Claim 16, has similar limitations as of claim 7, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7.
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okabe (JP2017117265A), Kano (US20200105388A1), and Goulikar (US20190102375A1).
Regarding claim 3, Okabe in view of Kano teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire image information (Okabe; ¶0060, the server group transmits the electronic medical chart and the examination image to the acquiring section as clinical data. This teaches acquiring image information). However, Okabe in view of Kano does not explicitly disclose to acquire the observation information from the image information using a character recognition technique.
Goulikar, ¶0005, describes that source documents may have an image form and, ¶0128, that extracting data from the image form comprises processing the image and that “Each rectangle may be cropped and passed to OCR for character recognition”, with output including extracted text (XML/text). This teaches acquiring observation information from image information using a character recognition technique.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify the system of Okabe in view of Kano, with Goulikar’s OCR character recognition technique to enable automated data extraction from image-based records for processing and display.
Claim 12, has similar limitations as of claim 3, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAN F KALHORI whose telephone number is (571)272-5475. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:30 ET.
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, Devona Faulk can be reached at (571) 272-7515. 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.
/DAN F KALHORI/Examiner, Art Unit 2618
/DEVONA E FAULK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2618