CTNF 18/907,593 CTNF 86663 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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 1-14 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. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors. For example, it is unclear what the Applicant intends for “an importance degree” to be, and how it is applied to a first and second disease, specifically from a first and second document, respectively. 07-34-05 AIA Claim 10 recites the limitation " the progression degree" and “the urgency degree ” in Line 3 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. 2012/0166226 A1) . Claim 1, Lee teaches: An information processing apparatus ( Lee, Fig. 4 ) comprising: at least one processor ( Lee, Paragraph [0033] ), wherein the processor is configured to: acquire a first medical document in which information on a disease recognized for a patient is described ( Lee, Paragraph [0047], The plurality of data for a patient includes data representing disease states with or without complications, diagnosis code facts for description, and chronic disease states (see Lee, Paragraph [0037]). The data may be gathered from documents, records, and/or directly from patients. ); acquire a second medical document in which information on a treatment for a disease of the patient or course information on the disease of the patient is described ( Lee, Paragraph [0047], The plurality of data for a patient includes records of treatments and records of procedures, for example, the data may be gathered from documents, records, and/or directly from patients. ); and issue, in a case in which an untreated disease, an alarm indicating that the untreated disease is present ( Lee, Paragraph [0051], An example alert leads the healthcare provider to a diagnosis previously unrealized. Additionally, a doctor may treat the patient for issues that the patient was not aware of (see Lee, Paragraph [0053]). ). Lee does not explicitly teach: An untreated disease, which is a disease not described in the second medical document, is present among the diseases described in the first medical document. However, Lee discloses that the system determines deficiencies, treatment failure, actionable items, risk measures, medication gaps, medication conflicts, etc. that may be described as gaps in treatment (see Lee, Paragraph [0048]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for a particular disease entered into the health management system (“HMS”) (see Lee, Paragraph [0037]), i.e. in a first medical document, to not have a corresponding treatment or procedure (see Lee, Paragraph [0047]), i.e. on a second medical document, if a gap in treatment exists, e.g. a treatment failure. Therefore, a report or an alert regarding the gap in treatment would be functionally equivalent to an alarm for an untreated disease. Claim 2, Lee further teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to specify the untreated disease by analyzing text described in the first medical document and text described in the second medical document, and present information indicating the specified untreated disease ( Lee, Paragraph [0048], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for a gap in treatment, e.g. a treatment failure, to be capable of indicating a patient having a diagnosed disease followed by a treatment failure, e.g. the disease is untreated. The documents entered into the HMS is text searchable (see Lee, Paragraphs [0047] and [0115]). ). Claim 3, Lee further teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to present information required to access the first medical document in which the untreated disease is described ( Lee, Paragraphs [0081-0082], In order to access the HMS web site, a user, e.g. the patient or the healthcare provider, is informed to enter their respective login and password for authentication. ). Claim 4, Lee further teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to issue the alarm based on an importance degree set for the untreated disease ( Lee, Paragraphs [0048-0051], The type of alert generated, e.g. an alert that leads the healthcare provider to a diagnosis previously unrealized, is based on the type of gap in treatment. One of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, would recognize that each gap in treatment has a level of importance for causing the system to generate an alert, i.e. an importance degree. ). Claim 5, Lee further teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the importance degree is set based on a type of an organ related to the untreated disease ( Lee, Paragraphs [0037] and [0048-0051], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the system to be capable of determining a plurality of undiagnosed diseases corresponding to respective organs. Thus, each alert based on a gap in treatment may be based on a different organ, e.g. a heart or a lung. ). Claim 6, Lee further teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to specify a progression degree or an urgency degree of the untreated disease from the first medical document ( Lee, Paragraph [0054], The different reports entered into the HMs includes progress summaries and/or linear progression of conditions related to the patient. ), and set the importance degree based on the specified progression degree or the specified urgency degree ( Lee, Paragraphs [0048-0051], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the progress summaries and/or the linear progression of conditions related to the patient to indicate whether the patient has experienced a gap in treatment, e.g. if a particular condition remains unchanged or gets worse. Thus, the generated alert related to the gap in treatment would represent the importance degree of the related disease. ). Claim 7, Lee further teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to set the importance degree based on a relevance between an organ related to a treatment target disease, which is the disease described in the second medical document, and an organ related to the untreated disease ( Lee, Paragraphs [0048-0051], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the untreated disease to be for the same or different organ as other treated diseases. Thus, the generated alert would be indicative of a different relevance if the treated and untreated diseases were for the same organ or if the treated and untreated diseases were for different organs. ). Claim 8, Lee further teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to lower the importance degree in a case in which the organ related to the treatment target disease and the organ related to the untreated disease are the same as each other than in a case in which these organs are different from each other ( Lee, Paragraphs [0048-0051], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the untreated disease to be for the same or different organ as other treated diseases. Thus, the generated alert would be indicative of a different relevance if the treated and untreated diseases were for the same organ or if the treated and untreated diseases were for different organs. As per the limitation of the importance degree configured to be lower if the organs are the same as each other, claim 8 in view of claims 7 and 4, only require the alarm to be based on the importance degree, but does not define how the change in importance degree affects the alarm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the alert to be generated for an untreated disease if the respective organs are the same or different, i.e. if the important degree is lower or higher, respectively. ). Claim 9, Lee further teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to issue the alarm based on a comparison result between a first importance degree set for the untreated disease and a second importance degree set for a treatment target disease which is the disease described in the second medical document ( Lee, Paragraph [0115], In the listed example, a healthcare professional is able to compare a blood test with a previous blood test for the same patient by utilizing the system’s ability to perform text searching of patient records. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as the time of filing, for the system to be capable of comparing a current treated disease, i.e. a treatment target disease, with a previously diagnosed disease by utilizing said text search. Thus, the respective importance degrees could be the same if the diseases were the same, or they could be different if the diseases were different. ). Claim 10, Lee further teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to set the first importance degree and the second importance degree based on the progression degree or the urgency degree of the treatment target disease and the untreated disease ( Lee, Paragraphs [0048-0051], In the example wherein the diagnosed disease of the first medical document and the treated disease of the second medical document are the same disease, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the first and second importance degrees to be set as the same and wherein the importance degrees are based on a respective progress or urgency of the treatment of the disease. ). Claim 11, Lee further teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to set the second importance degree based on the number of the treatment target diseases or a treatment period ( Lee, Paragraphs [0048-0051], For each disease being treated, the number of the treatment target disease is one. ). Claim 12, Lee further teaches: The information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to set a first importance degree set for the untreated disease in a case in which a specific disease is the untreated disease and a second importance degree set for the treatment target disease in a case in which the specific disease is the treatment target disease, to be different from each other ( Lee, Paragraphs [0048-0051], It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, for the important of each disease, i.e. the untreated disease in the first document and the treated disease in the second document, to be assigned different “importance degrees” based on the diseases being different. It is noted that claim 12 in view of claim 9 does not define the functional language with respect to the differences in importance degrees, i.e. claim 9 defines an alarm based on a comparison between the first importance degree and the second importance degree, but claim 12 in view of claim 9 does not define how the difference between the first and second importance degrees affect issued alarm in claim 9. ). Claim 13, Lee teaches: An information processing method ( Lee, Fig. 4 ) comprising: via at least one processor ( Lee, Paragraph [0033] ) provided in an information processing apparatus ( Lee, Fig. 4 ), acquiring a first medical document in which information on a disease recognized for a patient is described ( Lee, Paragraph [0047], The plurality of data for a patient includes data representing disease states with or without complications, diagnosis code facts for description, and chronic disease states (see Lee, Paragraph [0037]). The data may be gathered from documents, records, and/or directly from patients. ); acquiring a second medical document in which information on a treatment for a disease of the patient or course information on the disease of the patient is described ( Lee, Paragraph [0047], The plurality of data for a patient includes records of treatments and records of procedures, for example, the data may be gathered from documents, records, and/or directly from patients. ); and issuing, in a case in which an untreated disease, an alarm indicating that the untreated disease is present ( Lee, Paragraph [0051], An example alert leads the healthcare provider to a diagnosis previously unrealized. Additionally, a doctor may treat the patient for issues that the patient was not aware of (see Lee, Paragraph [0053]). ). Lee does not explicitly teach: An untreated disease, which is a disease not described in the second medical document, is present among the diseases described in the first medical document. However, Lee discloses that the system determines deficiencies, treatment failure, actionable items, risk measures, medication gaps, medication conflicts, etc. that may be described as gaps in treatment (see Lee, Paragraph [0048]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for a particular disease entered into the health management system (“HMS”) (see Lee, Paragraph [0037]), i.e. in a first medical document, to not have a corresponding treatment or procedure (see Lee, Paragraph [0047]), i.e. on a second medical document, if a gap in treatment exists, e.g. a treatment failure. Therefore, a report or an alert regarding the gap in treatment would be functionally equivalent to an alarm for an untreated disease. Claim 14, Lee teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing an information processing program causing at least one processor provided in an information processing apparatus to execute ( Lee, Paragraph [0033] ) a process ( Lee, Fig. 4 ) comprising: acquiring a first medical document in which information on a disease recognized for a patient is described ( Lee, Paragraph [0047], The plurality of data for a patient includes data representing disease states with or without complications, diagnosis code facts for description, and chronic disease states (see Lee, Paragraph [0037]). The data may be gathered from documents, records, and/or directly from patients. ); acquiring a second medical document in which information on a treatment for a disease of the patient or course information on the disease of the patient is described ( Lee, Paragraph [0047], The plurality of data for a patient includes records of treatments and records of procedures, for example, the data may be gathered from documents, records, and/or directly from patients. ); and issuing, in a case in which an untreated disease, an alarm indicating that the untreated disease is present ( Lee, Paragraph [0051], An example alert leads the healthcare provider to a diagnosis previously unrealized. Additionally, a doctor may treat the patient for issues that the patient was not aware of (see Lee, Paragraph [0053]). ). Lee does not explicitly teach: An untreated disease, which is a disease not described in the second medical document, is present among the diseases described in the first medical document. However, Lee discloses that the system determines deficiencies, treatment failure, actionable items, risk measures, medication gaps, medication conflicts, etc. that may be described as gaps in treatment (see Lee, Paragraph [0048]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for a particular disease entered into the health management system (“HMS”) (see Lee, Paragraph [0037]), i.e. in a first medical document, to not have a corresponding treatment or procedure (see Lee, Paragraph [0047]), i.e. on a second medical document, if a gap in treatment exists, e.g. a treatment failure. Therefore, a report or an alert regarding the gap in treatment would be functionally equivalent to an alarm for an untreated disease. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES J YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5170. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am-6:00p M-F. 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, BRIAN ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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. /JAMES J YANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 Application/Control Number: 18/907,593 Page 2 Art Unit: 2686 Application/Control Number: 18/907,593 Page 3 Art Unit: 2686 Application/Control Number: 18/907,593 Page 4 Art Unit: 2686 Application/Control Number: 18/907,593 Page 5 Art Unit: 2686 Application/Control Number: 18/907,593 Page 6 Art Unit: 2686 Application/Control Number: 18/907,593 Page 7 Art Unit: 2686 Application/Control Number: 18/907,593 Page 8 Art Unit: 2686 Application/Control Number: 18/907,593 Page 9 Art Unit: 2686 Application/Control Number: 18/907,593 Page 10 Art Unit: 2686 Application/Control Number: 18/907,593 Page 11 Art Unit: 2686
Prosecution Insights