DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
This communication is in response to the Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 8/25/26. Claims 1, 7, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/25/26 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-6 are directed to a method (i.e., a process) and claims 7-14 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1-14 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are drawn to software per se (e.g., modules, application). Software per se intrinsically require no tangible physical structure, thus do not constitute tangible physical articles or other forms of matter. Therefore, software per se is not considered to be statutory subject matter. Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations are not directed to any of the statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts.
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
1. A medical information processing method suitable for executing on a cloud platform service system of medical information, which is used to process medical information containing descriptive information and to-be-processed data, wherein the medical information is processed to conform a calculation of a selected medical information calculation application, the cloud platform service system of medical information comprises a computer equipment and a cloud platform, the computer equipment comprises a calculation required information detection module and a verification information generation module, the medical information processing method comprising:
a calculation required information detection process executed by the calculation required information detection module, wherein a calculation required information comparison table is pre-stored in the computer equipment, and the calculation required information comparison table records a plurality of medical information calculation applications and items and contents of at least one calculation required information required for calculation by each of the medical information calculation applications, the calculation required information detection process comprising:
selection of one medical information calculation application from the plurality of medical information calculation applications recorded in the calculation required information comparison table;
identification, based on the calculation required information comparison table, of the items and contents of the at least one calculation required information required for calculation by the selected medical information calculation application;
comparison of the descriptive information of the medical information with the items and contents of the at least one calculation required information required for calculation by the selected medical information calculation application, so as to detect whether the descriptive information includes the at least one calculation required information;
determination that all corresponding items of the at least one calculation required information are present in the descriptive information and that the content of each of the corresponding items is correct, thereby determining that a detection result is true; and
in response to determining that the detection result is true, deletion of all or part of accompanying descriptive information, which is a residual part of the descriptive information other than the at least one calculation required information, and generation of to-be-processed medical information based on the to-be-processed data and the descriptive information remaining after the deletion; and
a verification information generation process executed by the verification information generation module to generate a verification information when the to-be-processed medical information is generated in the calculation required information detection process,
wherein the descriptive information comprises personal information used to describe patients, information related to medical units, tests, or information used to describe parameters related to medical images or physiological signal;
wherein, the descriptive information and the to-be-processed data are stored in one single data file or in separated data files.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute “mental processes” because the medical information processing method comprising: a calculation required information detection process, the calculation required information detection process comprising: identification, based on the calculation required information comparison table, of the items and contents of the at least one calculation required information required for calculation; comparison of the descriptive information of the medical information with the items and contents of the at least one calculation required information required for calculation, so as to detect whether the descriptive information includes the at least one calculation required information; determination that all corresponding items of the at least one calculation required information are present in the descriptive information and that the content of each of the corresponding items is correct, thereby determining that a detection result is true; and in response to determining that the detection result is true, deletion of all or part of accompanying descriptive information, which is a residual part of the descriptive information other than the at least one calculation required information, and generation of to-be-processed medical information based on the to-be-processed data and the descriptive information remaining after the deletion; and a verification information generation process to generate a verification information when the to-be-processed medical information is generated in the calculation required information detection process, wherein the descriptive information comprises personal information used to describe patients, information related to medical units, tests, or information used to describe parameters related to medical images or physiological signal amount to observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind or via pen and paper.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. It must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The limitations of claims 1, 7, and 15, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a cloud platform service system, computer equipment, cloud platform, modules, applications, an application server, and a network server to perform the limitations, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performed in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the cloud platform service system, computer equipment, cloud platform, modules, applications, application server, and network server are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of storing data, recording data, selecting data, identifying data, comparing information, detecting information, determining data, deleting information, generating information, receiving information, sending information, and analyzing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP § 2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Claims 2-6, 8-14, and 16-20 are ultimately dependent from Claim(s) 1, 7, and 15 and include all the limitations of Claim(s) 1, 7, and 15. Therefore, claim(s) 2-6, 8-14, and 16-20 recite the same abstract idea. Claims 2-6, 8-14, and 16-20 describe further limitations regarding wherein the accompanying descriptive information comprises direct personal information and indirect personal information, types of files, wherein the to-be-processed data is medical image data, physiological signal data, or non-file descriptive text data, transmitting information, recovering information, and an AI model or medical information analysis. These are all just further describing the abstract idea recited in claims 1, 7, and 15, without adding significantly more.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, independent claims 1, 7, and 15 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations directed to storing information/data in data files, a table pre-stored in computer equipment, recording applications/items/contents, a server storing an application, and a server receiving/sending information, all of which the Examiner submits merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea or are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality), the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of storing and retrieving information in memory and receiving and transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: change “after deletion“ to “after the deletion“. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 18 & 19, filed 8/25/26, with respect to claims 1, 7, and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 103 rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's additional arguments filed 8/25/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 8/25/26.
(1) Reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 are respectfully requested.
(A) As per the first argument, see 101 rejection above. Regarding claim 15, the claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are drawn to software per se (e.g., modules, application). Applicant is reminded that limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations in the 101 rejection above constitute “mental processes” because the medical information processing method comprising: a calculation required information detection process, the calculation required information detection process comprising: identification, based on the calculation required information comparison table, of the items and contents of the at least one calculation required information required for calculation; comparison of the descriptive information of the medical information with the items and contents of the at least one calculation required information required for calculation, so as to detect whether the descriptive information includes the at least one calculation required information; determination that all corresponding items of the at least one calculation required information are present in the descriptive information and that the content of each of the corresponding items is correct, thereby determining that a detection result is true; and in response to determining that the detection result is true, deletion of all or part of accompanying descriptive information, which is a residual part of the descriptive information other than the at least one calculation required information, and generation of to-be-processed medical information based on the to-be-processed data and the descriptive information remaining after the deletion; and a verification information generation process to generate a verification information when the to-be-processed medical information is generated in the calculation required information detection process, wherein the descriptive information comprises personal information used to describe patients, information related to medical units, tests, or information used to describe parameters related to medical images or physiological signal amount to observations/evaluations/judgments/analyses that can, at the currently claimed high level of generality, be practically performed in the human mind or via pen and paper. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the cloud platform service system, computer equipment, cloud platform, modules, applications, application server, and network server are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of storing data, recording data, selecting data, identifying data, comparing information, detecting information, determining data, deleting information, generating information, receiving information, sending information, and analyzing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, Applicant appears to argue features that have not been claimed (e.g., “alters the medical information according to the specific requirements of the selected calculation application,” “defined processing and routing sequence,” “verification-controlled transmission,” etc.).
Applicant is reminded that limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception , as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h).
Regarding the additional limitations directed to storing information/data in data files, a table pre-stored in computer equipment, recording applications/items/contents, a server storing an application, and a server receiving/sending information, all of which the Examiner submits merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea or are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality), the Examiner further submits that such steps are not unconventional as they merely consist of storing and retrieving information in memory and receiving and transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited but not applied prior art teaches an image processing apparatus and image processing method (US 2010/0142791 A1); "Clinical calculators in hospital medicine: availability, classification, and needs" (Dziadzko, Mikhail A., et al.); and an x-ray perspective image calibration method of surgical navigation system (CN-101467887-A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LENA NAJARIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7072. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 am-6 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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571)270-1813. 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.
/LENA NAJARIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
