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 Status
Claims 1-14 are pending.
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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1:
An information processing apparatus comprising one or more processors,
the one or more processors being configured to perform processing for:
evaluating at least one evaluation target contained in each of a plurality of
documents; extracting a group of documents including at least one document, from among
the plurality of documents, based on the evaluation; and outputting information related to the extracted group of documents.
Evaluating a target can be done in a human mind by means of rule-based techniques, see specification [0106].
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because improvement to information processing apparatus (apparatus) and/or technological process (extracting a group of documents) is not claimed.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Official notice is taken of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements. Official notice is taken that information processing apparatus comprising one or more processors, performing generic processing functions at a high level of generality is well-understood, routine, conventional.
Official notice that extracting a group of documents is well-understood, routine and conventional.
Official notice unsupported by documentary evidence may be taken where the facts asserted are well-known or common knowledge in the art and are capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute.
Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as claim 1
Dependent claims 2-13 do not correct the deficiencies of claim 1.
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.
Claim 2. The information apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation is an evaluation of a degree of risk.
The term “degree of risk” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 12. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the
at least one evaluation target includes at least one of: a state in which each of the
plurality of documents does not contain an expression that should be contained; and
a state in which each of the plurality of documents contains an expression that
should be excluded.
The claim language “contains an expression that should be excluded” is not positively recited and is not given patentable weight.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mei (US 2020/0105418).
Mei discloses:
evaluating at least one evaluation target contained in each of a plurality of
documents;
extracting a group of documents including at least one document, from among
the plurality of documents, based on the evaluation; and
outputting information related to the extracted group of documents.
Mei [0062] The detection module 422 is configured to, in response to receipt of a graph associated with a person from the graph repository 410, detect one or more risk factors associated with an NCD based on the graph. The detection module 432 can be implemented to detect the one or more risk factors by searching electronic documents (e.g., electronic versions of academic or medical papers) via one or more electronic databases or repositories, such as health database 430, and identifying the one or more risk factors from one or more electronic documents. One example of a website that can be used to detect one or more risk factors is PubMed, which is a free search engine maintained by the United States National Library of Medicine (NLM) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that can access one or more electronic databases (e.g., the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) database). A relevant keyword search (e.g., a search for “factors spread in large social network”) can be performed to identify results for extraction using one or more data mining techniques. For example, if “alcohol” and “loneliness” are included in the results of the keyword search, “alcohol” and “loneliness” can be extracted from the results. Various data mining techniques can be used to mine data. Illustrative, queries can be passed to a website (e.g., PubMed) and the response can then be processed directly in a corresponding programing environment. The code can be automated to build systematic queries with different keywords.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mei (US 2020/0105418).
Mei discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform processing for searching for specific documents from among the plurality of documents, and evaluating at least
one evaluation target contained in each of the specific documents found in the search.
Mei [0062], see above.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mei (US 2020/0105418).
Mei discloses wherein the plurality of documents include a document set that includes a plurality of associated documents; and the one or more processors are configured to perform processing for evaluating at least one evaluation target contained in each of documents in the
document set.
Mei [0062], see above
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei in view of Voros (US 2010/0017182) .
Mei discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein the
one or more processors are configured to perform processing for further extracting
the group of documents from the plurality of documents, based on a user input which
has been set in advance for the documents. However, Voros discloses:
Voros [0053] Beginning in FIG. 1, the method 100 of assessing the CAD risk level of an asymptomatic patient, or a symptomatic patient without plaque build up, starts by accepting a set of risk assessment values entered using a user interface 101. When applied in the context of a distributed computing environment, the user interface may be in the form of Hypertext Mark-up Language documents ("HTML pages") which can accept user input of the risk assessment values.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mei to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Voros for the purpose of atherosclerosis risk reduction including initial risk stratification, goal setting, and goal attainment for patients with, or at risk for, atherosclerosis, see abstract.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei in view of Marks (US 2021/0391075)
Mei discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein the at
least one evaluation target includes a plurality of evaluation targets and the one or
more processors are configured to perform processing for, when a number of the
plurality of evaluation targets changes, extracting the group of documents from
among the plurality of documents based on the plurality of evaluation targets after
the change. However, Marks discloses:
Marks [0042] A common mode of failure for recommender systems and search engines is to present only the items that are at the top of the list of retrieved articles according to some metric, without regard for variety. As an analogy, even if a user likes cowboy westerns, the user may be bored if a movie streaming service recommends only westerns. In another augmentation, a better presentation strategy that balances article rating with variety of the whole set of recommendations might be more useful to HCPs. The system might also present articles from the medical literature that are in service of specific pedagogic goals. As an example, the system may present articles from the literature relating to the same disease or therapy at regular intervals, so that the HCP is reminded of the relevant issues for that disease or therapy over time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mei to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Marks for the purpose of recommending to a healthcare professional medical literature that is of relevance to the healthcare professional’s patients, see abstract.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei in view of Marks.
Mei in view of Marks discloses when the evaluation for the at least one evaluation target is changed, extracting the group of documents from among the plurality of documents based on the evaluation after the change.
See Marks [0042] above.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei and further in view of intended use’
Claim 8 recites wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform processing for outputting, as the information related to the extracted group of documents, the at least one evaluation target and a degree of the evaluation for the at least one evaluation target, so as to
be associated with each other.
The claim language “so as to be associated with each other” is drawn to intended use and is not given patentable weight.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei and further in view of intended use’
Claim 9 recites wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform processing for outputting, as the information related to the extracted group of documents, the at least one evaluation target contained in each of the group of documents and an action status for the at
least one evaluation target, so as to be associated with each other.
The claim language “so as to be associated with each other” is drawn to intended use and is not given patentable weight.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei and further in view of intended use’
Claim 10 recites wherein the at least one evaluation target includes a plurality of evaluation targets and the one or more processors are configured to perform processing for outputting, as the
information related to the extracted group of documents, a specific evaluation target
from among the plurality of evaluation targets contained in each of the group of
documents and relevant information of the specific evaluation target, so as to be
associated with each other.
The claim language “so as to be associated with each other” is drawn to intended use and is not given patentable weight.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei and further in view of intended use’
Claim 11 recites wherein the one or more processors are configured to perform processing for outputting, as the information related to the extracted group of documents, each of the group of
documents and information of the evaluation of each of the group of documents, so
as to be associated with each other.
The claim language “so as to be associated with each other” is drawn to intended use and is not given patentable weight.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mei in view of Reid (US 2002/0178120)
Mei discloses elements of the claimed invention as noted but does not disclose wherein, in a
case where the documents are contract documents, the attribute information includes at least one of a type of contract, a party concerned of the contract, a position of the party concerned, and a contract status. However, Reid discloses:
Reid [0008] In another embodiment, the method of the present invention comprises: drafting a contract or receiving a draft contract, said draft contract having one or more obligations; routing the draft contract to one or more parties for review and/or execution; storing review and/or execution data in a single contract database comprising data obtained from multiple contract documents; storing, after contract execution, data obtained from the resulting contract in said database, said data organized into fields comprising: contract identifier, contract type, contract status, effective date, and expiration date; and a field comprising obligation type, status, owner or due date; and said system capable of generating reports based on said database, said reports obtainable through search of said fields, and said database being selectively accessible by a plurality of users; retrieving from said database a report of outstanding obligations; analyzing said report to determine which, if any, of said obligations should be acted upon; taking action based on said analysis; and updating said database to reflect said action.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mei to obtain above limitation based on the teachings of Reid for the purpose of providing a database to track pending and executed agreements, and to track manage specific agreement obligations and obligation triggering events to ensure that each agreement obligation is met, see abstract.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mei (US 2020/0105418).
Mei discloses:
evaluating at least one evaluation target contained in each of a plurality of
documents;
extracting a group of documents including at least one document, from among
the plurality of documents, based on the evaluation; and
outputting information related to the extracted group of documents.
Mei [0062] The detection module 422 is configured to, in response to receipt of a graph associated with a person from the graph repository 410, detect one or more risk factors associated with an NCD based on the graph. The detection module 432 can be implemented to detect the one or more risk factors by searching electronic documents (e.g., electronic versions of academic or medical papers) via one or more electronic databases or repositories, such as health database 430, and identifying the one or more risk factors from one or more electronic documents. One example of a website that can be used to detect one or more risk factors is PubMed, which is a free search engine maintained by the United States National Library of Medicine (NLM) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that can access one or more electronic databases (e.g., the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) database). A relevant keyword search (e.g., a search for “factors spread in large social network”) can be performed to identify results for extraction using one or more data mining techniques. For example, if “alcohol” and “loneliness” are included in the results of the keyword search, “alcohol” and “loneliness” can be extracted from the results. Various data mining techniques can be used to mine data. Illustrative, queries can be passed to a website (e.g., PubMed) and the response can then be processed directly in a corresponding programing environment. The code can be automated to build systematic queries with different keywords.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETIENNE PIERRE LEROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-4022. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Apu Mofiz can be reached at 571 272 4080. 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.
/ETIENNE P LEROUX/Primary Examiner of Art Unit 2161
Prosecution Insights