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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed toward an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and does not include additional elements that amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 1
Claim 1 is directed toward an “apparatus”, which is a machine and thus falls within a statutory category under the most recent guidelines of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Claim 1 recites instructions for “extract at least one word included in a comment on findings”; “classify the word into a predetermined item”; “display the word for each item on a display”; and “search for medical information similar to content of the comment on findings from among a plurality of pieces of recorded medical information based on the word.” These limitations collectively recite the extraction, collection, evaluation and displaying of information. As characterized by the USPTO guidance and case law, such activities fall within the abstract-idea groupings of mental processes (e.g. observations, evaluations, and judgments that could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper) and organizing /transmitting information. Reference can be made to latest patent eligibility guidelines. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The claim is implemented on a “an information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, wherein the processor is configured …” These are generic computer components performing their well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of storing and executing instructions, receiving requests, and sending content.
The claim does not recite any specific improvement to computer functionality (e.g., a particular translation algorithm, model architecture, data structure, memory organization, caching mechanism, latency-reduction technique, or network protocol that improves the operation of the computer or network). Nor does it effect a transformation of a physical article or use the abstract idea in any other manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the claim’s scope. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong 2.
Step 2B
Beyond the abstract idea, the additional elements are the generic “processor,” performing its conventional functions. Implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components does not amount to significantly more. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24).
The ordered combination of limitations mirrors the abstract idea itself performed using routine computer operations. There is no recited unconventional hardware, no technical improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and no nonconventional arrangement of known components etc.
Accordingly, claim 1 does not include an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.
Therefore , claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and does not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Claim 1 is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims 2-18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The Independent claim 19 recite(s) the steps of “extracting at least one word included in a comment on findings”; “classifying the word into a predetermined item”; “displaying the word for each item on a display”; and “searching for medical information similar to content of the comment on findings from among a plurality of pieces of recorded medical information based on the word.” All the steps can be performed by a human being including applying a translation service algorithm. These limitations collectively recite the collection, evaluation, displaying of information. As characterized by the USPTO guidance and case law, such activities fall within the abstract-idea groupings of mental processes (e.g. observations, evaluations, and judgments that could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper) and organizing /transmitting information. Reference can be made to latest patent eligibility guidelines. Accordingly, claim 19 recites an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a generic computing device the determining and data gathering steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. The current specification on paragraph 0046, clearly specifies that “… As the information processing apparatus 10, for example, a personal computer, a server computer, a smartphone, a tablet terminal, a wearable terminal, or the like can be applied as appropriate.” The additional elements have been considered both individually and as an ordered combination in the significantly more consideration. The inclusion of the computer or memory and controller to perform the selecting and generating steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computing device cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 19 as drafted is not patent eligible. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Independent claim 19 is therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 2-18 are dependent claims and do not contain subject matter that can be overcome the rejection of independent claim 1. Claim 20 is directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions to implement the method of claim 19 and is rejected under similar rationale.
All dependent claims when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because any additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea for the same reasons already recited for the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by McEwing et al., (US 2020/0350072 A1).
As per claims 1, 19 and 20, McEwing et al., teach an information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor/method/non-transitory computer readable medium with instructions to implement the method, wherein the processor is configured to:
extract at least one word included in a comment on findings (0072, 0048-0049) ;
classify the word into a predetermined item (0203, 0204, 0214, 0223);
display the word for each item on a display (0025, 0056-0057, 0099-0100, 0222-0224); and
search for medical information similar to content of the comment on findings from among a plurality of pieces of recorded medical information based on the word (0013, 0061-0062, 0528, 0827).
As per claim 2, McEwing et al., teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, in a case in which a plurality of the words are extracted from the comment on findings, receive selection of at least one of the words used for searching for the medical information (0013, 0061-0062, 0528, 0827).
As per claim 3, McEwing et al., teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to display an operation unit that receives the selection of at least one of the words used for searching for the medical information on the display in association with the word (0025, 0056-0057, 0099-0100, 0222-0224).
As per claim 4, McEwing et al., teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to search for the medical information based on at least one of a synonym or a related word predetermined for each word (0013, 0050, 0061-0062, 0528, 0827).
As per claim 5, McEwing et al., teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to, in a case in which the number of pieces of the medical information found based on the word does not satisfy a predetermined threshold value, search for the medical information based on the synonym (0013, 0050, 0061-0062, 0528, 0774, 0792, 0827).
As per claim 6, McEwing et al., teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processor is configured to, in a case in which the number of pieces of the medical information found based on the synonym does not satisfy a predetermined threshold value, search for the medical information based on the related word (0013, 0050, 0061-0062, 0528, 0774, 0792, 0827).
As per claim 7, McEwing et al., teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to specify a plurality of words whose degree of co-occurrence is equal to or higher than a predetermined threshold value, based on the plurality of pieces of medical information, as related words (0013, 0050, 0061-0062, 0528, 0774, 0792, 0827).
As per claim 8, McEwing et al., teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire a plurality of the comments on findings; and receive selection of at least one of the plurality of comments on findings used for searching for the medical information (0072, 0048-0049, 0528, 0827).
As per claim 9, McEwing et al., teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to, in a case in which the number of pieces of the medical information found based on the word does not satisfy a predetermined threshold value: extract at least one word included in another comment on findings related to the comment on findings selected from among the plurality of comments on findings; and search for the medical information based on the word extracted from the other comment on findings (0072, 0048-0049, 0528, 0827).
As per claim 10, McEwing et al., teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to search for the medical information based on a weight predetermined for each item (0013, 0050, 0061-0062, 0324, 0528, 0772, 0827).
As per claim 11, McEwing et al., teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the processor is configured to receive a setting of the weight for each item (0013, 0050, 0061-0062, 0324, 0528, 0772, 0827).
As per claim 12, McEwing et al., teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: specify factuality of the extracted word; and search for the medical information based on the factuality (0072, 0048-0049, 0528, 0827).
As per claim 13, McEwing et al., teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to, in a case in which the word indicates a numerical value, receive designation of a numerical value range that is considered to be similar to the comment on findings (0055, 0136, 0272, 1057-1058).
As per claim 14, McEwing et al., teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein: the word indicates information regarding an abnormal shadow in a medical image, and the item indicates at least one of a name, a property, a disease name, a position, or a measured value of the abnormal shadow (0530, 0847).
As per claim 15, McEwing et al., teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to display the found medical information on the display (0025, 0056-0057, 0099-0100, 0222-0224, 0964).
As per claim 16, McEwing et al., teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: derive a degree of similarity between the content of the comment on findings and the medical information; and display the derived degree of similarity on the display (0025, 0056-0057, 0065, 0099-0100, 0222-0224, 0964).
As per claim 17, McEwing et al., teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the medical information indicates at least one of a medical image, a comment on findings regarding the medical image, subject information regarding a subject of the medical image, or biological information acquired from the subject (0025, 0056-0057, 0065, 0099-0100, 0222-0224, 0964).
As per claim 18, McEwing et al., teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 17, wherein the medical information indicates the comment on findings (0025, 0056-0057, 0065, 0072, 0048-0049, 0528, 0827, 0099-0100, 0222-0224, 0964).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached form PTO-892.
The following is some of closest applicable prior art.
Sohma (US 2016/0239564 A1) teaches an information processing apparatus includes: an analysis unit configured to analyze a text; an obtaining unit configured to obtain term expressions from the text based on a result of the analysis; a classifying structuring unit configured to classify the term expressions based on a usage type of the term expressions; and a presentation unit configured to present a result of the classification based on a unified presentation sequence.
Anderson et al., (US 2015/0154358 A1) teach medical records that are created and modified based upon the needs of the user. In addition to selecting information needed by a user from a database, the present invention identifies and eliminates information from the medical records that is not needed or wanted. A computer database is created by receiving from healthcare providers a plurality of electronic encounter records. The computer further receives input data relating to the medical information that the customer wishes to include in the desired report. The input data may include items to be included in the report or items to be excluded from the report. The computer analyzes the patient encounter records in the database to identify and select a subset of patient encounter records based on the input data. The computer analyzes the subset of patient encounter records to identify and remove medical information to thereby create a sub-subset of medical information again based on the input data provided by the customer. A desired report is computer generated from the patient encounter records based on the sub-subset of medical information.
Mok et al., (US 2012/0290564 A1) teach a method that receives a plurality of documents. The documents may be received from different medical providers. Also, the documents may be medical record documents generated or captured in a first format and a second format. The first format may be an unstructured data format and the second format may be a structured data format. The first and second documents are then converted to a common format. For example, a common format may emerge as the most restrictive or constrained denominator of the first format and the second format. A schema is determined that provides an organizational structure with categories that can be used to index the content of the first and second documents while they are being converted to the common format. The schema and indexing enable the different formats of documents to be combined and organized simultaneously into a single view for a comprehensive review.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIJAY B CHAWAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7601. The examiner can normally be reached 7-5 Monday thru Thursday.
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, Richemond Dorvil can be reached at 571-272-7602. 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.
/VIJAY B CHAWAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2658