DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s reply filed 01/30/2026.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are pending.
Claim 2 is canceled. Independent claims 1 and 6 are amended.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected.
Notice of AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to for depending on canceled claim 2 and is being interpreted as being dependent on independent claim 1, into which claim 2 has been incorporated.
Statutory Review under 35 USC § 101
Claims 1 and 3-5 are directed toward a system and have been reviewed.
Claims 1 and 3-5 initially appear to be statutory under 35 USC § 101, as they invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). A claim that properly recites a means-type limitation cannot be software per se because it necessarily includes the processor along with the special programming that accomplishes the function.
However, claims 1 and 3-5 are not patent-eligible based on the patent subject matter eligibility determination.
Claim 6 is directed toward a method and has been reviewed.
Claim 6 is not patent-eligible based on the patent subject matter eligibility determination.
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While the Examiner appreciates the incorporation of the language of claim 2 in addition to amendments to the “generating structured information” element in light of the Examiner’s indication of the result-oriented solution (see p6 of CTNF 09/03/2025), the claims remain considered to be drawn to patent-ineligible subject matter based on current guidance and the patent subject matter eligibility determination.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that claim 1 is not merely an organization of information, but rather calls for specific technical processing by a computer.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner disagrees: the claims do not recite determining specificity using a statistical deviation model and are merely an organization of information that can be performed mentally, being performed by a computer being used as a tool.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant further argues that the processes all involve numerical calculations and data structure manipulations that are impossible for human cognitive activities to execute; as a result, amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract concept of “understanding or classifying information,” but rather is directed to the technical processing of converting data into new machine-readable formats.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner disagrees: the claims are currently drawn to sorting data in a time series and/or in chronological order, and the claims make no explicit mention of converting data or of said new machine-readable formats.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant further argues that the processing pipeline for amended claim 1 is an order-dependent algorithm, altering the sequence causing the computational results to lose consistency and significantly degrade performance. Applicant adds that amended claim 1, with its structural and sequential constraints, represents not merely “automation of information,” but an improvement in the very functionality of computers.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the purported loss of consistency or degradation of performance is not realized in the claims; the improvement to the very functionality of computers is also not evident in the claims as currently structured.
As a result, the claims remain directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Dependent claims 3-5 remain rejected at least by virtue of their dependence on rejected base claims.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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.
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), 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 limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1:
“a snapshot information acquisition unit”
“a process information generation unit”
“a peculiarity determination unit”
“a state information generation unit”
“a structured information generation unit”
Claim 3:
“a meaning imparting unit”
Claim 4:
“a communication information acquisition unit”
“an extraction unit”
“a presentation unit”
Claim 5:
“an information supply unit”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
¶ 0069, “Each of the units of each of the devices in the above embodiments may be implemented by dedicated hardware, or may be implemented by a memory and a microprocessor”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites dividing information into a meaningful unit, identifying a subject, determining a peculiarity, and classifying the process information to generate state information, which is a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception of dividing information into a meaningful unit, identifying a subject, determining a peculiarity, and classifying the process information to generate state information is not integrated into a practical application.
The generically recited computer elements amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as seen below.
acquire snapshot information
This additional element is mere data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
generate process information in which the snapshot information is arranged in a time series
generating structured information indicating changes in the time series of the unit meaning information by combining the state information in different groups in the generated state information while maintaining a chronological relationship among the state information in the different groups
These additional elements are mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception despite the additional elements shown below:
acquire snapshot information
generate process information in which the snapshot information is arranged in a time series
This performs receiving or transmitting data over a network, which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d), specifically MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
generating structured information indicating changes in the time series of the unit meaning information by combining the state information in different groups in the generated state information while maintaining a chronological relationship among the state information in the different groups
These additional elements perform gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques (usually performed prior to displaying the result), which is considered to not be sufficient to show improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Claim 3 recites imparting a meaning to the state indicated by the structured information; however, claim 3 does not add a meaningful limitation as these are merely nominal or token extra-solution components of the claim.
Claim 4 recites acquiring communication information, extracting information as complementary information, and presenting the extracted complementary information, which are mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 5 describes supplying information indicating a state of a subject obtained as a result of the presentation of complementary information presented by the presentation unit, which is more generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 6 recites dividing information into a meaningful unit, identifying a subject, determining a peculiarity, and classifying process information to generate state information, which is a mental process (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Step 2A, Prong Two
This judicial exception of dividing information into a meaningful unit, determining a peculiarity, and classifying process information to generate state information is not integrated into a practical application.
The generically recited computer elements amount to implementing the abstract idea on a computer, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as seen below.
acquiring snapshot process information
This additional element is mere data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
generating process information by arranging the snapshot information for each subject in chronological order based on the timing information;
generating structured information indicating changes in the time series of the unit meaning information by combining the state information from mutually different groups among the generated state information.
These additional elements are mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception despite the additional elements shown below:
acquiring snapshot process information
generating process information by arranging the snapshot information for each subject in chronological order based on the timing information;
This performs receiving or transmitting data over a network, which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d), specifically MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(i).
generating structured information indicating changes in the time series of the unit meaning information by combining the state information from mutually different groups among the generated state information.
These additional elements perform gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques (usually performed prior to displaying the result), which is considered to not be sufficient to show improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Response to Amendments - 35 USC § 112
Claim 6 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
While the acquiring step of claim 6 could potentially be interpreted as associating unit meaning information with (1) situation information and with (2) identification information, it appears to more clearly recite associating unit meaning information with situation information, the situation information further comprising/including at least (1) timing information and (2) identification information.
The rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3; and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliveira et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0287660 (hereinafter Oliveira) in view of Boussios et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,967,428 (filed April 16, 2019; hereinafter Boussios).
Regarding claim 1, Oliveira teaches:
An information processing system, comprising: a snapshot information acquisition unit configured to acquire snapshot information in which unit meaning information and situation information are associated with each other, (Oliveira FIG. 5, ¶ 0049-0050: At block 502, the system may retrieve, from a plurality of data sources (e.g., 102-110), data indicative of a plurality of medical events associated with a subject. The data may include, for instance, a narrative data record (e.g., a clinical note composed by a clinician) that describes a first medical event of the plurality of medical events associated with the subject, and a structured, non-narrative data record (e.g., an ICD code, physiological measurement, dosages, etc.) that conveys a second medical event of the plurality of medical events associated with the subject ... At block 508, the system may associate, e.g., in database 121, each of the plurality of medical events with a respective timestamp. As noted previously, these timestamps may be derived from metadata associated with the underlying data record, or may be explicitly stated in the data record)
the unit meaning information being obtained by dividing information indicating a state of a subject into a meaningful unit, (Oliveira FIG. 2, ¶ 0042-0043: visual timeline 232 includes a plurality of graphical elements 234 (only two which are indicated for the sakes of simplicity and brevity) that are ordered along a time axis from left to right ... Going from left to right, it can be seen that the subject experienced various medical events, such as an anemia diagnosis, followed sometime later by a diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy (“LVH”). This diagnoses lead to a subsequent treatment being applied the form of a stent placement (e.g., percutaneous coronary intervention, or “PCI”). Following the stent placement, the subject was diagnosed with acute kidney injury (“AKI”))
the situation information including at least timing information indicating a timing at which the state indicated by the unit meaning information occurs… (Oliveira FIG. 5, ¶ 0049-0050: At block 508, the system may associate, e.g., in database 121, each of the plurality of medical events with a respective timestamp. As noted previously, these timestamps may be derived from metadata associated with the underlying data record, or may be explicitly stated in the data record)
a process information generation unit configured to generate process information in which the snapshot information is arranged in a time series for each of the subjects based on the timing information; (Oliveira FIG. 4, ¶ 0046-0047: a search query visual timeline 240 is depicted that illustrates the four medical events selected by the user, in their temporal order. Three additional visual timelines 232A-C, are rendered as well. They are associated with three other subjects who experienced the same four medical events in the same order. In this example, visual timeline 232A represents an 82-year-old female subject that had a stent placed, and then was diagnosed with AKI, within twenty four hours. Visual timeline 232B represents a 76-year old male subject that had a stent placed, and then was diagnosed with AKI, within seven days)
a peculiarity determination unit configured to determine a peculiarity of the process information generated by the process information generation unit based on the process information and reference information indicating a predetermined reference; (Oliveira FIGs. 3-4, ¶ 0044-0047, see first Oliveira ¶ 0043-0044: the user has selected the graphical element 234 associated with the LVH diagnosis ... the user may be able to select a graphical element 234 to view the data underlying the respective medical event ... In FIG. 3, and as is indicated by the dashed lines, four of the graphical elements 234 have been selected by the user: ANEMIA, LVH, STENT PLACEMENT, and AKI. In effect the user is signaling a desire to see other subjects having experienced a similar sequence of medical events ... Based on the user's input selecting these four graphical elements 234 [relevant to reference information], a search query may be formulated, e.g., by subject history comparer 122, that seeks other subjects that experienced an ordered sequence of ANEMIA, LVH, STENT PLACEMENT, and AKI. As indicated by the annotation (which may or may not actually be rendered as part of GUI 230), the STENT PLACEMENT and AKI medical events occurred within 48 hours of one another; see also Oliveira ¶ 0047: the first subject, associated with visual timeline 232A, is ranked higher than (e.g., is more similar the original subject [shows being based on the reference information]) than the others because they were diagnosed with AKI within a day (24 hours) after stent placement)
a state information generation unit configured to classify the process information for groups of the peculiarity determined by the peculiarity determination unit to generate state information indicating changes in the time series of the unit meaning information for each of the groups, while maintaining the time series based on an occurrence timing indicated by the timing information; and (Oliveira FIG. 4, ¶ 0046-0047: a search query visual timeline 240 is depicted that illustrates the four medical events selected by the user, in their temporal order. Three additional visual timelines 232A-C, are rendered as well. They are associated with three other subjects who experienced the same four medical events in the same order. In this example, visual timeline 232A represents an 82-year-old female subject that had a stent placed, and then was diagnosed with AKI, within twenty four hours. Visual timeline 232B represents a 76-year old male subject that had a stent placed, and then was diagnosed with AKI, within seven days ... the first subject, associated with visual timeline 232A, is ranked higher than (e.g., is more similar the original subject) than the others because they were diagnosed with AKI within a day (24 hours) after stent placement. The second subject associated with visual timeline 232B may be ranked lower because seven days passed between his PCI and AKI diagnosis [see Oliveira FIG. 4 showing timeframes such as 48 hours, 24 hours, and/or 7 days])
a structured information generation unit configured to generate structured information indicating changes in the time series of the unit meaning information by combining the state information in different groups in the generated state information while maintaining a chronological relationship among the state information in the different groups. (Oliveira FIG. 4; see also ¶ 0006, "The timeline data structure may be generated in various formats, such as a linked list, an array of medical events and associated timestamps, a sequence of database records, etc. Once the timeline data structures are assembled, they may be stored in one or more databases," ¶ 0012-0014, "storing the timeline data structure associated with the subject in a database containing a plurality of timeline data structures associated with a plurality of subjects ... causing to be rendered on the display, based on the one or more other timeline data structures retrieved from the database, one or more visual timelines indicative of respective one or more pluralities of medical events associated with the one or more other subjects responsive to the search query" and ¶ 0035, "assemble (and store in a database 121, for instance), what will be referred to herein as a 'timeline data structure; that represents a plurality of medical events associated with a subject and a temporal relationship between the plurality of medical events"; see Oliveira ¶ 0055: At block 610, the system may retrieve, from a database (e.g., 121) based on the search query, one or more responsive timeline data structures associated with one or more other subjects [shows having been stored as structured information])
Oliveira does not expressly disclose the situation information including … identification information for identifying the subject.
However, Boussios addresses this by teaching situation information including identification information for identifying the subject. (Boussios FIG. 6, col. 19, lines 45-60: FIG. 6 is an illustrative example of a graphical user interface that provides a more detailed report for one or more patients. This interface provides a row for each patient, and several columns of information. In this example, the columns include a patient identifier 600)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the functioning of the medical data analysis of Oliveira with the medical data analysis of Boussios.
In addition, both of the references (Oliveira and Boussios) disclose features that are directed to analogous art, and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as analysis of time-based data.
Motivation to do so would be to improve the functioning of Oliveira performing analysis of and display of medical data with similar reference Boussios also performing analysis and display of medical data but with the improved display capabilities of Boussios.
Regarding claim 3, Oliveira in view of Boussios teaches all the features with respect to claim 2 above including:
a meaning imparting unit configured to impart a meaning to the state indicated by the structured information. (Oliveira FIG. 3, ¶ 0007: each graphical element may be operable to cause additional information about the respective medical event to be output. Suppose a particular graphical element represents diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy (“LVH”); Oliveira FIG. 4, ¶ 0046-0047: visual timeline 232A represents an 82-year-old female subject that had a stent placed, and then was diagnosed with AKI, within twenty four hours)
Regarding claim 6, Oliveira teaches:
A computer-implemented method of processing information, the method comprising the steps of: acquiring snapshot information, that associates unit meaning information that represents a state of a subject divided into meaningful units, (Oliveira FIG. 5, ¶ 0049-0050: At block 502, the system may retrieve, from a plurality of data sources (e.g., 102-110), data indicative of a plurality of medical events associated with a subject. The data may include, for instance, a narrative data record (e.g., a clinical note composed by a clinician) that describes a first medical event of the plurality of medical events associated with the subject, and a structured, non-narrative data record (e.g., an ICD code, physiological measurement, dosages, etc.) that conveys a second medical event of the plurality of medical events associated with the subject ... At block 508, the system may associate, e.g., in database 121, each of the plurality of medical events with a respective timestamp. As noted previously, these timestamps may be derived from metadata associated with the underlying data record, or may be explicitly stated in the data record)
with situation information including at least timing information indicating the timing when the state occurred… (Oliveira FIG. 5, ¶ 0049-0050: At block 508, the system may associate, e.g., in database 121, each of the plurality of medical events with a respective timestamp. As noted previously, these timestamps may be derived from metadata associated with the underlying data record, or may be explicitly stated in the data record)
generating process information by arranging the snapshot information for each subject in chronological order based on the timing information; (Oliveira FIG. 4, ¶ 0046-0047: a search query visual timeline 240 is depicted that illustrates the four medical events selected by the user, in their temporal order. Three additional visual timelines 232A-C, are rendered as well. They are associated with three other subjects who experienced the same four medical events in the same order. In this example, visual timeline 232A represents an 82-year-old female subject that had a stent placed, and then was diagnosed with AKI, within twenty four hours. Visual timeline 232B represents a 76-year old male subject that had a stent placed, and then was diagnosed with AKI, within seven days)
determining a peculiarity of the process information by comparing the process information with reference information that indicates a predetermined standard; (Oliveira FIGs. 3-4, ¶ 0044-0047, see first Oliveira ¶ 0043-0044: the user has selected the graphical element 234 associated with the LVH diagnosis ... the user may be able to select a graphical element 234 to view the data underlying the respective medical event ... In FIG. 3, and as is indicated by the dashed lines, four of the graphical elements 234 have been selected by the user: ANEMIA, LVH, STENT PLACEMENT, and AKI. In effect the user is signaling a desire to see other subjects having experienced a similar sequence of medical events ... Based on the user's input selecting these four graphical elements 234 [relevant to reference information], a search query may be formulated, e.g., by subject history comparer 122, that seeks other subjects that experienced an ordered sequence of ANEMIA, LVH, STENT PLACEMENT, and AKI. As indicated by the annotation (which may or may not actually be rendered as part of GUI 230), the STENT PLACEMENT and AKI medical events occurred within 48 hours of one another; see also Oliveira ¶ 0047: the first subject, associated with visual timeline 232A, is ranked higher than (e.g., is more similar the original subject [shows being based on the reference information]) than the others because they were diagnosed with AKI within a day (24 hours) after stent placement)
classifying the process information for each group of peculiarities to generate state information indicating changes in the time series of the unit meaning information for each group, while maintaining the time series based on an occurrence timing indicated by the timing information; and (Oliveira FIG. 4, ¶ 0046-0047: a search query visual timeline 240 is depicted that illustrates the four medical events selected by the user, in their temporal order. Three additional visual timelines 232A-C, are rendered as well. They are associated with three other subjects who experienced the same four medical events in the same order. In this example, visual timeline 232A represents an 82-year-old female subject that had a stent placed, and then was diagnosed with AKI, within twenty four hours. Visual timeline 232B represents a 76-year old male subject that had a stent placed, and then was diagnosed with AKI, within seven days ... the first subject, associated with visual timeline 232A, is ranked higher than (e.g., is more similar the original subject) than the others because they were diagnosed with AKI within a day (24 hours) after stent placement. The second subject associated with visual timeline 232B may be ranked lower because seven days passed between his PCI and AKI diagnosis [see Oliveira FIG. 4 showing timeframes such as 48 hours, 24 hours, and/or 7 days])
generating structured information indicating changes in the time series of the unit meaning information by combining the state information from mutually different groups among the generated state information while maintaining a chronological relationship among the state information in the different groups. (Oliveira FIG. 4; see also ¶ 0006, "The timeline data structure may be generated in various formats, such as a linked list, an array of medical events and associated timestamps, a sequence of database records, etc. Once the timeline data structures are assembled, they may be stored in one or more databases," ¶ 0012-0014, "storing the timeline data structure associated with the subject in a database containing a plurality of timeline data structures associated with a plurality of subjects ... causing to be rendered on the display, based on the one or more other timeline data structures retrieved from the database, one or more visual timelines indicative of respective one or more pluralities of medical events associated with the one or more other subjects responsive to the search query" and ¶ 0035, "assemble (and store in a database 121, for instance), what will be referred to herein as a 'timeline data structure; that represents a plurality of medical events associated with a subject and a temporal relationship between the plurality of medical events"; see Oliveira ¶ 0055: At block 610, the system may retrieve, from a database (e.g., 121) based on the search query, one or more responsive timeline data structures associated with one or more other subjects [shows having been stored as structured information])
Oliveira does not expressly disclose the situation information including … identification information for identifying the subject.
However, Boussios addresses this by teaching situation information including identification information for identifying the subject. (Boussios FIG. 6, col. 19, lines 45-60: FIG. 6 is an illustrative example of a graphical user interface that provides a more detailed report for one or more patients. This interface provides a row for each patient, and several columns of information. In this example, the columns include a patient identifier 600)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the functioning of the medical data analysis of Oliveira with the medical data analysis of Boussios.
In addition, both of the references (Oliveira and Boussios) disclose features that are directed to analogous art, and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as analysis of time-based data.
Motivation to do so would be to improve the functioning of Oliveira performing analysis of and display of medical data with similar reference Boussios also performing analysis and display of medical data but with the improved display capabilities of Boussios.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oliveira in view of Boussios in further view of Twitchell, Jr. et al., U.S. Patent No. 9,116,734 (published August 25, 2015; hereinafter Twitchell, Jr.)
Regarding claim 4, Oliveira in view of Boussios teaches all the features with respect to claim 3 above including:
an extraction unit configured to extract, based on … the structured information, information, (Oliveira FIG. 6, ¶ 0055-0057: At block 610, the system may retrieve, from a database (e.g., 121) based on the search query, one or more responsive timeline data structures associated with one or more other subjects … techniques described herein may be used to identify a cohort of patients that are similar to a patient being examined. Once the cohort is identified, attributes of the cohort (e.g., medical events, treatments, etc.) may be used for clinical decision support and/or to fill in possible missing data items of the patient being examined)
which is required to be complemented based on the structured information, in a time series … as complementary information; and a presentation unit configured to present the extracted complementary information to the users. (Oliveira FIG. 6, ¶ 0055: At block 612, the system may render, on the display, based on the one or more responsive timeline data structures, one or more visual timelines indicative of one or more respective pluralities of medical events associated with the one or more other subjects; see also Oliveira FIG. 2, ¶ 0043: the user has selected the graphical element 234 associated with the LVH diagnosis. Consequently, additional interface 236 displays information underlying that diagnosis, such as the depicted ECG readings and/or other data (e.g., features of the ECG readings). In this manner, the user may be able to select a graphical element 234 to view the data underlying the respective medical event)
Oliveira in view of Boussios does not expressly disclose:
a communication information acquisition unit configured to acquire communication information indicating a content of communication between users;
an extraction unit configured to extract, based on the acquired communication information … information,
However, an embodiment of Twitchell, Jr. teaches:
a communication information acquisition unit configured to acquire communication information indicating a content of communication between users; (Twitchell, Jr. col. 14, lines 54-63: Accessible recording of symptoms and experiences from a patient's (individual) perspective as recorded by the individual and recorded in real-time that is practical .. The conversations and data are time and geospatially stamped so that trends can be analyzed over time and space)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the functioning of the medical data analysis of Oliveira as modified with the data analysis of Twitchell, Jr.
In addition, both of the references (Oliveira as modified and Twitchell, Jr.) disclose features that are directed to analogous art, and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as analysis of time-based data.
Motivation to do so would be to improve the functioning of Oliveira as modified performing analysis of and display of medical data with similar reference Twitchell, Jr. also performing analysis and display of medical data but further including time and geospatial considerations.
Motivation to do so would also be the teaching, suggestion, or motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement more robust and improved clinical decision support as seen in Twitchell, Jr. col. 18, line 52-col. 19, line 3.
Oliveira in view of Boussios in further view of this embodiment of Twitchell, Jr. does not expressly disclose:
an extraction unit configured to extract, based on the acquired communication information … information,
However, another embodiment of Twitchell, Jr. addresses this by teaching:
an extraction unit configured to extract, based on the acquired communication information … information, (Twitchell, Jr. FIG. 9, col. 20, lines 6-36: first data regarding one or more symbolic representations selected 902 by John Doe is electronically recorded at time equal to t.sub.0, second data regarding one or more symbolic representations selected 904 by Jane Doe is electronically recorded time equal to t.sub.1, and third data regarding one or more symbolic representations selected 906 by John Doe is electronically recorded time equal to t.sub.2. Thereafter, at time equal to t.sub.3 this recorded data is accessed 908 and a report is generated of a history of symptoms for this particular user, John Doe, over a selected period of time including from time t.sub.0 to t.sub.2, from time t.sub.0 to t.sub.1, from time t.sub.1 to t.sub.2, as desired)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the functioning of the medical data analysis of Oliveira as modified with the data retrieval of Twitchell, Jr.
In addition, both of the references (Oliveira as modified and Twitchell, Jr.) disclose features that are directed to analogous art, and they are directed to the same field of endeavor, such as input of time-based data.
Motivation to do so would also be the teaching, suggestion, or motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to enable people to put their symptoms into a computing device regardless of literacy; to enable of data to be recorded in real-time or near real-time regardless of literacy; and to provide a solution for people regardless of their literacy, general communication skills, and language, cultural, ethnic, doctor/patient and social economic barriers as seen in Twitchell, Jr. col. 20, line 21-36.
Regarding claim 5, Oliveira in view of Boussios and Twitchell, Jr. teaches all the features with respect to claim 4 above including:
an information supply unit configured to supply, to the snapshot information acquisition unit, information indicating a state of a subject obtained… (Oliveira FIGs. 2-3, ¶ 0042-0043: Going from left to right, it can be seen that the subject experienced various medical events … the user has selected the graphical element 234 associated with the LVH diagnosis. Consequently, additional interface 236 displays information underlying that diagnosis, such as the depicted ECG readings and/or other data (e.g., features of the ECG readings). In this manner, the user may be able to select a graphical element 234 to view the data underlying the respective medical event)
Boussios teaches:
an information supply unit configured to supply … information indicating a state of a subject obtained as a result of the presentation of the complementary information presented by the presentation unit. (Boussios FIGs. 5-6, col. 19, lines 15-60: The computer system identifies those patients associated with a provider and identifies those patients for that provider who have an elevated risk based on the predicted outcomes from the model 104. Information about these patients can be formatted into a report, and information summarizing these patients can be sent to the provider on a mobile device. For example, a provider may receive a notification that a number of patients is at high risk, as indicated at 510 ... The application on the mobile device may provide a way for the provider to initiate access to a more detailed report for these patients, as indicted by the button 520. In response to the provide manipulating the button 520, the application sends a request to the computer system to access the more detailed report ... the columns include a patient identifier 600, a date 602 of a relevant procedure or other event, a date 604 an alert was generated by the system, an optional representation of a score 606 based on the output by the predictive model 104, and indications 608 of any risk factors this patient has)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the functioning of the medical data analysis of Oliveira with the medical data analysis of Boussios.
Motivation to do so would be to improve the functioning of Oliveira performing retrieval of and display of medical data with similar reference Boussios also performing retrieval of and display of medical data but with the improved alert capabilities of Boussios.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bastide et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0248152; see Bastide FIG. 3 describing detecting and extracting time sensitive attributes from structured data; see Bastide ¶ 0043 describing prioritizing diagnoses such as "asthma: over ones such as "stubbed toe," relevant to at least the independent claim limitations involving peculiarities and state information.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEDIDIAH P FERRER whose telephone number is (571)270-7695. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Friday, 12:00pm-9:00pm.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at (571)272-8352. 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.
/J.P.F/Examiner, Art Unit 2153 May 23, 2026
/KAVITA STANLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights