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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it includes legal phraseology and is 208 words in length. The abstract also repeats information given in the title. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “an analysis unit”, “a search condition acquisition unit”, “a search unit”, and “an update unit” in Claim 1; “a total point calculation unit” in Claim 7.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-11 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.
Claim limitations “an analysis unit configured to analyze…”, “a search condition acquisition unit configured to acquire…”, “a search unit configured to search…”, “a calculation means configured to calculate…”, “a presentation means configured to present…”, “a feedback acquisition means configured to acquire feedback…”, “an update unit configured to update…” and “a total point calculation unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification indicates the described series of processes can be performed by hardware or software, and further states “In a case where the series of processing is executed by software, a program constituting the software is installed in a computer”, see [0160], the specification fails to clearly associate each particular unit with a structure, material, or act to perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11 recite various “units” for performing different functions, however the specification fails to provide sufficient description of the units for performing the claimed functions. Therefore, the claims lack written description under 112(a).
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to software per se. The claim does not comprise of a product that has a physical or tangible form and also does not include any structural recitations, thus, the program of claim 13 is directed to software per se and the claim is directed to non-statutory embodiments that are not eligible for patent protection. See MPEP 2106.03(I), “As the courts' definitions of machines, manufactures and compositions of matter indicate, a product must have a physical or tangible form in order to fall within one of these statutory categories. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1348, 111 USPQ2d at 1719. Thus, the Federal Circuit has held that a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1720 (claimed "device profile" comprising two sets of data did not meet any of the categories because it was neither a process nor a tangible product). Similarly, software expressed as code or a set of instructions detached from any medium is an idea without physical embodiment. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 449, 82 USPQ2d 1400, 1407 (2007); see also Benson, 409 U.S. 67, 175 USPQ2d 675 (An "idea" is not patent eligible). Thus, a product claim to a software program that does not also contain at least one structural limitation (such as a "means plus function" limitation) has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category.”
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent Claims
Step 1 analysis:
Claim 1 is drawn to a device (i.e., machine) and Claim 12 is drawn to a method (i.e., process), which are all within the four statutory categories. (Step 1 – Yes, the claim falls into one of the statutory categories). Although claim 13 is indicated as directed to software per se, claim 13 includes similar limitations to claim 12 and the 101 analysis applies to claim 13 as well.
Step 2A analysis – Prong One:
Claim 12 recites:
An information processing method comprising, by an information processing device:
analyzing data regarding surgery;
acquiring a search condition for searching for a reference case to be compared with an evaluation case as an evaluation target;
searching for the reference case matching the search condition from a database in which results of analysis are accumulated;
calculating an evaluation point of the evaluation case by using the evaluation case and the reference case, the reference case being obtained by the searching;
presenting the calculated evaluation point to a user;
acquiring feedback given by the user on the presented evaluation point; and
updating the evaluation point in a case where the feedback is acquired.
The series of steps as recited above describes managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions, and therefore fall within the scope of certain methods of organizing human activity. Fundamentally, the method is that of a person gathering information regarding a surgery, getting a search condition, searching for a reference case, presenting to another person, and getting feedback from the other person, which encompasses a person interacting with another individual including following rules or instructions. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of managing interactions between people.
The series of steps as recited above also falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas, and describes concepts that can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Analyzing data regarding surgery, acquiring a search condition and searching, calculating an evaluation point, and updating the evaluation point after receiving feedback can all be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea of a mental process.
Claim 12 also falls within the “mathematical concepts” grouping of abstract ideas, in addition to the abstract ideas set forth. The concept of “calculating an evaluation point” recites mathematical calculations. Therefore, Claim 12 recites an abstract idea of a mathematical concept.
Claim 1 recites/describes nearly identical steps as claim 12 (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and is therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A analysis – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, independent claim 12 recites the following additional elements beyond the abstract idea: an information processing device and a database. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements beyond the abstract idea: an analysis unit, a search condition acquisition unit, a search unit, and an update unit. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Specifically, a configuration example of hardware of a computer that executes the above-described series of processing with a program. In the computer, a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), and a random access memory (RAM) are connected to one another by a bus (see specification [0161]).
The additional elements do not show an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology, rather the additional elements perform general computing functions and do not indicate how the particular combination improves any technology or provides a technical solution to a technical problem. 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 abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1 and 12 are directed to an abstract idea without practical application. (Step 2A – Prong 2: No, the additional elements are not integrated into a practical application).
Step 2B analysis:
As discussed above in “Step 2A analysis – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in Independent Claims 1 and 12 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the additional elements to perform the steps for provider prioritization amount to no more than using computer related devices to implement the abstract idea.
The use of a computer or processor to merely automate or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) where mere instructions to apply an exception does not render an abstract idea patent eligible). There is no indication that the additional limitations alone or in combination improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, improves another technology or technical field, or effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible. The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: Independent claims - NO).
Dependent Claims
Dependent Claims 2-11 are directed towards elements used to describe the various units recited in claim 1 and the calculation process. These elements include acquiring items, comments, feedback and score inputs from other people. These elements describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including following rules or instructions, and therefore fall within the same scope of certain methods of organizing human activity as claim 1.
The elements in dependent claims 2-11 also fall within the same “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas as in claim 1, and describes concepts that can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Therefore, the dependent claims recite an abstract idea of a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Specifically, in addition to the additional elements set forth in the independent claims, the dependent claims recite the following additional element of a total point calculation unit. This limitation is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The limitations do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Specifically, a configuration example of hardware of a computer that executes the above-described series of processing with a program. In the computer, a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), and a random access memory (RAM) are connected to one another by a bus (see specification [0161]).
The additional elements do not show an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to
any other technology, rather the additional elements perform general computing functions and do not
indicate how the particular combination improves any technology or provides a technical solution to a
technical problem. 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 abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are
directed to an abstract idea without practical application.
The use of a computer or processor to merely automate or implement the abstract idea cannot
provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) where mere instructions to apply an exception does not render an abstract idea patent eligible). There is no indication that the
additional limitations alone or in combination improves the functioning of a computer or any other
technology, improves another technology or technical field, or effects a transformation or reduction of a
particular article to a different state or thing. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of
additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: Dependent claims - NO).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al. (WO 2021/189983) (hereinafter Kong) in view of Ohta et al. (WO 2010/032343) (Hereinafter Ohta).
Regarding Claim 1, Kong teaches the following limitations:
An information processing device (Kong [0010] – a case search method and apparatus) comprising:
a search condition acquisition unit configured to acquire a search condition for searching for a reference case to be compared with an evaluation case as an evaluation target (Kong [0045] – Setting the preset matching rule according to the clinical manifestation and the diagnosis result of the patient included in the initial case);
a search unit configured to search for the reference case matching the search condition from a database in which results of analysis by the analysis unit are accumulated (Kong [0010], [0012], [0017], [0025], [0046] – a case search module that quickly and effectively searches the existing case database for a first-level similar case similar to the initial case according to a preset matching rule);
a feedback acquisition means configured to acquire feedback given by the user on the evaluation point presented by the presentation means (Kong [0068] and [0069] – the feedback information of the user for the similar case is acquired); and
an update unit configured to update the evaluation point obtained by the calculation means, in a case where feedback is acquired by the feedback acquisition means (Kong [0070] – modifying the preset matching rule (evaluation point) according to the extracted word frequency).
However, Kong does not teach the following that is met by Ohta,
an analysis unit configured to analyze data regarding surgery (Ohta [0020] – The system collects data regarding treatment, either medical treatment or surgical treatment);
a calculation means configured to calculate an evaluation point of the evaluation case by using the evaluation case and the reference case, the reference case being obtained by searching with the search unit (Ohta [0018] – The similarity calculation unit receives the search query from the search query generation unit, receives the search target data from the search target data generation unit, calculates the similarity of the search target data with respect to the search query, and calculates the search target data having the highest similarity in the same search target patient as the similarity of the search target patient);
a presentation means configured to present the evaluation point calculated by the calculation means to a user (Ohta [0033] – present the search result to the user using the calculated similarity);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the device to search for medical cases as taught by Kong with the calculation and presentation means as taught by Ohta because by incorporating the calculation means, the person searching for the cases can not only to refer to past cases at a medical site, but also can support treatment policy determination and apply it to future prediction of a patient (See Ohta par. 14).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kong and Ohta teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, and Kong further teaches:
the feedback acquisition means acquires a cause of the evaluation point calculated to be low (Kong [0068] and [0069] – the feedback information includes similar cases, and extracts a word frequency of a similar case having a low degree of approximation. The word frequency of the low degree of approximation case is used to modify the preset matching rule), and
the update unit searches the database again after adding the cause to the search condition (Kong [0071] – According to the modified preset matching rule and the supervised learning result of the learning model, the secondary case similar to the initial case in the case database is further searched and fed back to the user), and
However, Kong does not teach the following that is met by Ohta:
the calculation means recalculates an evaluation point of the evaluation case by using the reference case obtained by searching again (Ohta [0028], [0033] – the similarity between events is calculated by adding 1 when elements of comparison target events of both the search query and the search target data match. The device then calculates a similarity using the adjusted similarity and presents that to the user.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the device to search for medical cases as taught by Kong with the calculation and presentation means recalculating the evaluation point as taught by Ohta because by incorporating the calculation means, the person searching for the cases can not only to refer to past cases at a medical site, but also can support treatment policy determination and apply it to future prediction of a patient (See Ohta par. 14).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Kong and Ohta teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, and Ohta further teaches:
the feedback acquisition means displays a list of items assumed as the cause and acquires an item selected by the user from the listed items (Ohta [0033] – a method of rearranging the search target data in descending order of the similarity of the search target data and then presenting it in a table format).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the search device as taught by Kong with the list of items as taught by Ohta because it allows for the option that a larger amount of data can be obtained when searching (See Ohta [0033]).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Kong and Ohta teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, and Kong further teaches:
the feedback acquisition means acquires a comment input by the user as the cause (Kong [0047], [0057] – After the user initiates the search, that is, after inputting the initial case, the system parses the initial case to generate a search command, and searches in massive cases of the case database. The user inputs search text.).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kong and Ohta teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, and Ohta further teaches:
the calculation means calculates the evaluation point of the evaluation case on a basis of a predetermined formula using an average value of the reference case (Ohta [0030]-[0031] – The similarity is calculated using a particular formula (i.e., Formula 1) that uses an average in the equation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the search device as taught by Kong with the formula for calculations as taught by Ohta because it allows for the option that a larger amount of data can be obtained when searching (See Ohta [0033]).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Kong and Ohta teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, and Ohta further teaches:
a total point calculation unit configured to calculate a total point for the evaluation case by using the evaluation point calculated by the calculation means for each of a plurality of items (Ohta [0028] – The similarity between events is calculated using the inspection values of 10 items among the event elements, but the number of items used for calculating the similarity between events can be changed, and items other than the inspection values can also be used for calculating the similarity between events.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the search device as taught by Kong with the total calculation as taught by Ohta because it allows for the option that a larger amount of data can be obtained when searching and it makes it possible to know the event of each of the past cases and the degree of similarity of the current case (See Ohta [0033] and [0028]).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Kong and Ohta teaches the information processing device according to claim 7, and Kong further teaches:
using the evaluation point updated by the update unit (Kong [0070] – modifying the preset matching rule (evaluation point) according to the extracted word frequency).
However, Kong does not teach the following that is met by Ohta:
the total point calculation unit calculates the total point (Ohta [0028] – The similarity between events is calculated using the inspection values of 10 items among the event elements, but the number of items used for calculating the similarity between events can be changed, and items other than the inspection values can also be used for calculating the similarity between events.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the search device as taught by Kong with the total calculation as taught by Ohta because it allows for the option that a larger amount of data can be obtained when searching and it makes it possible to know the event of each of the past cases and the degree of similarity of the current case (See Ohta [0033] and [0028]).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Kong and Ohta teaches the information processing device according to claim 7, and Kong further teaches:
Kong adjusts the calculation after the feedback is acquired from a plurality of users (Kong [0072] – The search engine obtains the feedback, and if the user considers that the just-consulted case text description is relatively close, then the enhanced operation is performed. Conversely, if the user considers that the case text just viewed is not used, the weakening operation is performed).
However, Kong does not disclose the following that is met by Ohta:
the total point calculation unit calculates the total point (Ohta [0028] – The similarity between events is calculated using the inspection values of 10 items among the event elements, but the number of items used for calculating the similarity between events can be changed, and items other than the inspection values can also be used for calculating the similarity between events).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the search device as taught by Kong with the total calculation as taught by Ohta because it allows for the option that a larger amount of data can be obtained when searching and it makes it possible to know the event of each of the past cases and the degree of similarity of the current case (See Ohta [0033] and [0028]).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Kong and Ohta teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, and Kong further teaches:
the calculation means converts the evaluation point into a predetermined stage evaluation, and the presentation means presents the evaluation point converted into the predetermined stage evaluation (Kong [0094] – Sorting the similar cases according to the degree of approximation thereof with the initial case, feeding back a preset number of similar cases to the user according to the ranking, and clustering the cases in the case database by using a k-means algorithm).
Regarding Claim 12, Kong teaches the following:
An information processing method (Kong [0010] – a case search method) comprising, by an information processing device (Kong [0085] – an electronic device processor):
acquiring a search condition for searching for a reference case to be compared with an evaluation case as an evaluation target (Kong [0045] – Setting the preset matching rule according to the clinical manifestation and the diagnosis result of the patient included in the initial case);
searching for the reference case matching the search condition from a database in which results of analysis are accumulated (Kong [0010], [0012], [0017], [0025], [0046] – a case search module that quickly and effectively searches the existing case database for a first-level similar case similar to the initial case according to a preset matching rule);
acquiring feedback given by the user on the presented evaluation point (Kong [0068] and [0069] – the feedback information of the user for the similar case is acquired); and
updating the evaluation point in a case where the feedback is acquired (Kong [0070] – modifying the preset matching rule (evaluation point) according to the extracted word frequency).
However, Kong does not teach the following that is met by Ohta:
analyzing data regarding surgery (Ohta [0020] – The system collects data regarding treatment, either medical treatment or surgical treatment);
calculating an evaluation point of the evaluation case by using the evaluation case and the reference case, the reference case being obtained by the searching (Ohta [0018] – The similarity calculation unit receives the search query from the search query generation unit, receives the search target data from the search target data generation unit, calculates the similarity of the search target data with respect to the search query, and calculates the search target data having the highest similarity in the same search target patient as the similarity of the search target patient);
presenting the calculated evaluation point to a user (Ohta [0033] – present the search result to the user using the calculated similarity);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the device to search for medical cases as taught by Kong with the calculation and presentation means as taught by Ohta because by incorporating the calculation means, the person searching for the cases can not only to refer to past cases at a medical site, but also can support treatment policy determination and apply it to future prediction of a patient (See Ohta par. 14).
Regarding Claim 13, Kong teaches the following:
A program for causing a computer to execute processing (Kong [0085] – series of computer program segments capable of being executed by an electronic device processor) comprising a step of:
acquiring a search condition for searching for a reference case to be compared with an evaluation case as an evaluation target (Kong [0045] – Setting the preset matching rule according to the clinical manifestation and the diagnosis result of the patient included in the initial case);
searching for the reference case matching the search condition from a database in which results of analysis are accumulated (Kong [0010], [0012], [0017], [0025], [0046] – a case search module that quickly and effectively searches the existing case database for a first-level similar case similar to the initial case according to a preset matching rule);
acquiring feedback given by the user on the presented evaluation point (Kong [0068] and [0069] – the feedback information of the user for the similar case is acquired); and
updating the evaluation point in a case where the feedback is acquired (Kong [0070] – modifying the preset matching rule (evaluation point) according to the extracted word frequency).
However, Kong does not teach the following that is met by Ohta:
analyzing data regarding surgery (Ohta [0020] – The system collects data regarding treatment, either medical treatment or surgical treatment);
calculating an evaluation point of the evaluation case by using the evaluation case and the reference case, the reference case being obtained by the searching (Ohta [0018] – The similarity calculation unit receives the search query from the search query generation unit, receives the search target data from the search target data generation unit, calculates the similarity of the search target data with respect to the search query, and calculates the search target data having the highest similarity in the same search target patient as the similarity of the search target patient);
presenting the calculated evaluation point to a user (Ohta [0033] – present the search result to the user using the calculated similarity);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined the device to search for medical cases as taught by Kong with the calculation and presentation means as taught by Ohta because by incorporating the calculation means, the person searching for the cases can not only to refer to past cases at a medical site, but also can support treatment policy determination and apply it to future prediction of a patient (See Ohta par. 14).
Relevant Prior Art of Record Not Currently Being Applied
The relevant art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Naoki et al. (JP 2016177359A) discloses a search device that accepts input from a searcher and presents similar project back to the searcher. It also calculates a sum of the similarity and the results are based on the sum. Lastly, it includes feedback that can be used to give better and more accurate results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXIS K VAN DUZER whose telephone number is (571)270-5832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday 8-5 CT.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/A.K.V./Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/MARC Q JIMENEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681