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 claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
According to the first part of the analysis, in the instant case, claims 1-11 are directed to an apparatus, claims 12-19 are directed to using a method, and claim 20 is directed to a system. Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Regarding claim 12:
A medical information control method comprising:
accepting a pointer operation signal corresponding to an operation by a user,
acquiring a plurality of medical information screen data laid out as a display screen,
detecting a first pointer drawn in one of the plurality of medical information screen data and specifying first pointer coordinates indicating a position of the first pointer,
calculating second pointer coordinates indicating a position of a second pointer drawn on the display screen based on the pointer operation signal, and
outputting a pointer movement signal based on the pointer operation signal so as to substantially match the first pointer coordinates with the second pointer coordinates.
Step 2A Prong 1:
“acquiring a plurality of medical information screen data laid out as a display screen” is directed to is directed to mental step of data gathering.
“detecting a first pointer drawn in one of the plurality of medical information screen data and specifying first pointer coordinates indicating a position of the first pointer” is directed to math because it involves identifying a pointer’s position using coordinates by calculate a position represented by coordinates.
“calculating second pointer coordinates indicating a position of a second pointer drawn on the display screen based on the pointer operation signal” is directed to math because this process involves mathematical/coordinate concepts and it calculates a position represented by coordinates such as (x,y).
“outputting a pointer movement signal based on the pointer operation signal so as to substantially match the first pointer coordinates with the second pointer coordinates” is directed to a mental step of display result.
Each limitation recites in the claim is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic “measurement” which is a mere indication of the field of use. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Further, the claim recites the step of “detecting a first pointer drawn in one of the plurality of medical information screen data and specifying first pointer coordinates indicating a position of the first pointer; calculating second pointer coordinates indicating a position of a second pointer drawn on the display screen based on the pointer operation signal” which as drafted, under BRI recites a mathematical calculation. The grouping of "mathematical concepts” in the 2019 PED includes "mathematical calculations" as an exemplar of an abstract idea. 2019 PEG Section |, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, the recited limitation falls into the "mathematical concept" grouping of abstract ideas. This limitation also falls into the “mental process” group of abstract ideas, because the recited mathematical calculation is simple enough that it can be practically performed in the human mind, e.g., scientists and engineers have been solving the Arrhenius equation in their minds since it was first proposed in 1889.
Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. See October Update at Section I(C)(i) and (iii).
Additional Elements:
Step 2A Prong 2:
“accepting a pointer operation signal corresponding to an operation by a user” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“acquiring a plurality of medical information screen data laid out as a display screen” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“detecting a first pointer drawn in one of the plurality of medical information screen data and specifying first pointer coordinates indicating a position of the first pointer” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“calculating second pointer coordinates indicating a position of a second pointer drawn on the display screen based on the pointer operation signal” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“outputting a pointer movement signal based on the pointer operation signal so as to substantially match the first pointer coordinates with the second pointer coordinates” is directed to insignificant activity and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
The claim is merely gadering data, manipulating or analyzing the data using math and mental process, and displaying the results.
This is similar to electric power: MPEP 2106.05(h) vi. Limiting the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis to data related to the electric power grid, because limiting application of the abstract idea to power-grid monitoring is simply an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
The claim as a whole does not meet any of the following criteria to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application:
An additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Step 2B:
“accepting a pointer operation signal corresponding to an operation by a user” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“acquiring a plurality of medical information screen data laid out as a display screen” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“detecting a first pointer drawn in one of the plurality of medical information screen data and specifying first pointer coordinates indicating a position of the first pointer” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“calculating second pointer coordinates indicating a position of a second pointer drawn on the display screen based on the pointer operation signal” does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. This additional element is merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
“outputting a pointer movement signal based on the pointer operation signal so as to substantially match the first pointer coordinates with the second pointer coordinates” is directed to insignificant activity and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d)(ii), third list, (iv).
The claim is therefore ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 1 is similar to claim 12 but recites a medical information display control apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to perform the steps as in claim 12. These additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. These elements are generic computing devices that perform generic functions. Using generic computer elements to perform an abstract idea does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Moreover, “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also FairWarninglP, LLCv. latric SysInc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter”).
On the record before us, we are not persuaded that the hardware of claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Nor are we persuaded that the additional elements are anything more than well-understood, routine, and conventional so as to impart subject matter eligibility to claim 1.
Claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea similar to claim 12. The additional elements (i.e., An X-ray diagnosis system comprising processing circuitry configured) are recited at a high level of generality, necessary, routine, or conventional to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. When considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See Alice Corp. and 2014 Interim Guidance.
Dependent claims 2-11 and 13-19 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below: there is no additional element(s) in the dependent claims that adds a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea to make the claim significantly more than the judicial exception (abstract idea).
Hence the claims 1-20 are treated as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishiguro (WO 2019/163246 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Ishiguro discloses a medical information display control apparatus and method comprising processing circuitry configured to
accept a pointer operation signal corresponding to an operation by a user (page 3), acquire a plurality of medical information screen data laid out as a display screen (22)(Figs.1,4-6, pages 4-7), detect a first pointer drawn in one of the plurality of medical information screen data and specify first pointer coordinates indicating a position of the first pointer (Figs.3-6, pages 4-7), calculate second pointer coordinates indicating a position of a second pointer drawn on the display screen based on the pointer operation signal (Fig.3, page 6, measurement 28), and output a pointer movement signal based on the pointer operation signal so as to substantially match the first pointer coordinates with the second pointer coordinates (Figs.4, 5, 9,10, pages 6-8).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Ishiguro discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to individually acquire the plurality of medical information screen data from a plurality of medical devices, output the pointer movement signal to one of the plurality of medical devices, and stop outputting the pointer movement signal to a medical device corresponding to the medical information screen data having undergone a transition from a state including the second pointer coordinates to a state not including the second pointer coordinates based on layout information indicating the layout of the plurality of medical information screen data (e.g., page 8, detecting he occurrence of the pointer stop state).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Ishiguro discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to detect the first pointer based on a change in the medical information screen data along time series and the pointer operation signal (e.g. page 8).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Ishiguro discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to cause a display to display the display screen on which the first pointer and the second pointer are drawn, and end drawing the second pointer if the first pointer coordinates substantially match the second pointer coordinates (e.g. Fig. 8,9,10, page 9).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Ishiguro discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to accept a click operation signal corresponding to a click operation by the user, and start to output the pointer movement signal in response to the click operation signal (e.g. Fig.2, page 6, a click operation or a switch operation).
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Ishiguro discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to start to output the pointer movement signal in response to arrival of the second pointer coordinates included in one of the plurality of medical information screen data at a boundary neighborhood of the medical information screen data based on layout information indicating the layout of the plurality of medical information screen data (e.g. Figs.18, 19).
Regarding claim 9, Ishiguro discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to adjust the pointer movement signal so as to substantially match the first pointer coordinates with the second pointer coordinates and output the adjusted pointer movement signal (e.g. page 4, reduce pointer movement speed).
Regarding claim 10, Ishiguro discloses wherein the first pointer and the second pointer have similar shapes with different sizes (e.g. Fig.18).
Regarding claim 11, Ishiguro discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to cause a display to display the display screen on which the first pointer and the second pointer are drawn, and if a first medical information screen is larger than a second medical information screen, adjust a moving speed of the second pointer in the second medical information screen to a speed lower than a moving speed of the second pointer in the first medical information screen after the second pointer in the first medical information screen moves into the second medical information screen (e.g. page 4, reduce pointer movement speed).
Regarding claim 20, Ishiguro discloses an X-ray diagnosis system comprising processing circuitry configured (page 10) to accept a pointer operation signal corresponding to an operation by a user (page 3), acquire a plurality of medical information screen data laid out as a display screen (22)(Figs.1,4-6, pages 4-7), detect a first pointer drawn in one of the plurality of medical information screen data and specify first pointer coordinates indicating a position of the first pointer (Figs.3-6, pages 4-7), calculate second pointer coordinates indicating a position of a second pointer drawn on the display screen based on the pointer operation signal (Fig.3, page 6, measurement 28), and output a pointer movement signal based on the pointer operation signal so as to substantially match the first pointer coordinates with the second pointer coordinates (Figs.4, 5, 9,10, pages 6-8).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H LE whose telephone number is (571)272-2275. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00am – 3:30pm Eastern Time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelby A. Turner can be reached on (571) 272-6334. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN H LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights